Gonzales v. Podsakoff, et al.

Filing 52

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 44 Motion for Copies and to Limit Discovery to Five Years, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 09/22/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13

1:15-cv-00924-DAD-SKO (PC)

MICHAEL GONZALES,
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR COPIES AND TO LIMIT
DISCOVERY TO FIVE YEARS

v.
PODSAKOFF, et al.,

(Doc. 44)

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff, Michael Gonzales, is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of

16

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

17

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion

18

requesting copies of all documents Defendants obtain from his CDCR files and that disclosure of

19

any such documents be limited to “within 5 years.” (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff attached a letter in which

20

defense counsel indicates a request will be made for documents from Plaintiff’s central file under

21

section 3370(e) of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. (Id., at p. 2.)

22

Documents in Plaintiff’s central file are equally available to Plaintiff, and Defendants

23

need not produce to Plaintiff a copy of documents they receive in response to their request.

24

Further, parties are entitled to seek discovery of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any

25

claim and/or defense in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery sought may include

26
27
28

information that is not admissible so long as it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Id. This defines the scope of discovery in federal civil
litigation in general. Thus, while documents exceeding five years prior to the incidents in
1

1

question in this action may not be admissible at trial, Defendants are nonetheless entitled to

2

obtain such documents as part of discovery.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for copies and to limit

3
4

documents to “within five years,” filed on June 1, 2017, (Doc. 44), is DENIED.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 22, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.