Villery v. Jones et al

Filing 124

ORDER RESOLVING 119 Plaintiff's Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Nelson's responses to requests for admission and Denying Relief therein, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 4/6/2021. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

JARED M. VILLERY,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.
JAY JONES, et. al.,
Defendant.

14

Case No. 1:15-cv-01360-DAD-HBK
ORDER RESOLVING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO DETERMINE SUFFICIENCY
OF NELSON’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS
FOR ADMISSION AND DENYING RELIEF
THEREIN
Doc. No. 119

15
16

Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s “motion to determine the sufficiency of defendant’s

17

Nelson’s Answers/Objections to Requests for Admissions, and/or deem the requests admitted,”

18

filed February 22, 2021. (Doc. No. 119, Motion). Defendant Nelson filed a response noting

19

untimeliness of the motion and objecting to the merits. (Doc. No 123, Response). This matter is

20

ripe for review.

21

I. Background and Plaintiff’s claims

22

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se on his First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 16).

23

The court’s § 1915A screening findings and recommendation order, adopted by the District Court

24

(Doc. No. 23), found in pertinent part that the Amended Complaint stated a First Amendment

25

retaliation claim for damages against Defendants Jones, Schmidt, Yerton, Excarcega, and Nelson

26

stemming from the following incidents:
(1) against defendants Jones and Schmidt for filing false
disciplinary proceedings; (2) against defendants Jones and Schmidt
for filing false disciplinary charges on January 27, 2014; (3) against

27
28

1

1

Defendant Jones for denying Plaintiff access to the law library in
February and March 2014; and (4) against defendants Schmidt,
Yerton, Excarcega and Nelson for re-housing plaintiff with inmate
Jones; and (5) against defendant Jones for destroying a March 20,
2014 grievance.

2
3
4

Doc. No. 19 at 17-18.

5
6

On January 20, 2021, the court held a status conference in part to address plaintiff’s
motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order. (Doc. No. 116). Thereafter, the Court

7

entered an Amended Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion to modify

8

discovery and scheduling order. (Doc. No. 118). Plaintiff’s motion to extend deadlines was

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

denied as to defendant Nelson, who has had a pending motion for summary judgment filed since
June 22, 2020, but the court permitted plaintiff a limited period of 14 days from the date on the
order to file any outstanding discovery motions directed at Nelson. (Id.). Plaintiff’s motion was
granted as to the other defendants who unopposed modifying the scheduling order, and the court
set a new discovery deadline of March 22, 2021 and a dispositive deadline of May 26, 2021.
(Id.).
As mentioned above, plaintiff filed his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6) to determine

16

the sufficiency of defendant’s Nelson’s Answers/Objections to Requests for Admissions, and/or

17

deem the requests admitted,” on February 22, 2021. See generally Motion. Plaintiff seeks an

18

order either: (1) deeming Nelson’s responses to be full admissions as to Request Nos. 1, 7-18, 22,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

24-25, 28-147; (2) compelling Nelson to respond; or (3) requiring Nelson give an explanation
describing steps taken as part of a reasonable inquiry, on a request-by-request basis. Id. at 23.
II. Legal Standards of Review
A. Rule 26- Scope of discovery generally
“[U]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties
may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at

26

stake in the action, the amount of controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant

27

information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

whether the burden and expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the benefit. Information
within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). District courts have “broad discretion to manage discovery.”
Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Tr., 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011).
B. Rule 36- Motion request court to determine sufficiency of defendant’s responses
to requests for admission
“A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the
pending action only, the truth of mattes within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) related to: (a) facts, the
application of law, or opinions about either; and (b) the genuineness of any described documents.
Rule 36 is not a discovery device.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). “Each matter must be separately stated.
A request to admit the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a copy of the
document unless it is, or has been, otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and
copying.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(2). Generally, Rule 36(a) requires one of three responses to a
request for admission: (1) an admission; (2) a denial; (3) a statement detailing why the answering
party cannot admit or deny the matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 (a)(4);
Under Rule 36(a)(6), a “requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an
answer or objection. Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be
served. On finding that an answer does not comply with this rule, the court may order either that
the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served. The court may defer its final decision
until a pretrial conference or a specified time before trial. Rule 37(a)(5) applies to an award of
expenses.” Id.
The purpose of the rule is to reduce costs of litigating by eliminating the necessity of
proving facts that are not in substantial dispute, to narrow the scope of the disputed issues, and to
facilitate the presentation of cases to the trier of fact. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co.,
669 F.2d 1242, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 1981). Generally, a reasonable inquiry is limited to review and
inquiry of those persons and documents that are within the responding party’s control, or readily
obtainable. Id. at 1246 (citations omitted).

28
3

1

While the discovery rules afford a party with liberality, they also provide a party with the

2

significant potential for abuse during pretrial discovery. Seattle Time Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S.

3

20, 34 (1984). It is well recognized that “requests to admit may be so voluminous and so framed

4
that the answering party finds the task of identifying what is in dispute and what is not unduly
5
6

burdensome.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 advisory committee note (1970 amendment). See also Knapp v.

7

Cate, No. 1:08-CV-01779-AWI-BAM, 2012 WL 2912254, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2012)

8

(finding 100 requests for admission excessive and limiting requests to 25 per defendant);

9

Mitchell v. Yeutter, No. 89-1465-FGT, 1993 WL 139218, at *1 (D. Kan. Jan. 12, 1993) (finding

10
11

plaintiff’s 90 requests for admission “that focus on small details, and not on major factual issues”
excessive and limiting requests to 40).

12
13

III. Analysis

14

A. Timeliness

15

In response to plaintiff’s Motion, defendant Nelson first contends that plaintiff’s motion is

16

untimely filed. Response at 2-3. Under the prison mailbox rule, a prisoner’s legal pleadings are

17

considered filed at the time of delivery to prison authorities for mailing to the court. Houston v.

18

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Courts deem the pro se prisoner’s date of signature on the pleading

19

the date of filing, absent evidence to the contrary. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 769 fn. 1

20

(9th Cir. 2010), see also Wolff v. California, 236 F. Supp.3d 1154, 1159 (E.D. Ca. Feb. 22, 2017)

21

(noting court need not treat a document as filed on the date it was purportedly submitted to prison

22

staff for mailing when the gap between the date and the postmark date is so long that the claimed

23

submission date appears implausible).

24

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, plaintiff’s motion was due to be filed within 14 days from the

25

date of the order, making Friday, February 18, 2021 the operative deadline. Plaintiff signed the

26

document a day earlier than the deadline, on February 17, 2021, see Doc. No. 119 at 19, and the

27

Clerk filed the pleading on February 22, 2021. Accordingly, the motion is timely and defendant’s

28

untimeliness argument is rejected.
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

B. Merits review
Turning to the merits of the motion, defendant Nelson in summary argues that he
conducted a reasonable inquiry when responding to plaintiff’s requests for admission and that the
147 requests for admission plaintiff pounded on him were burdensome and oppressive. Response
at 3 (citing Doc. No. 119, Exh. B). Relying in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), Nelson argues the
number of requests is not proportional to the issues at stake in the litigation. Id. Nelson
characterizes plaintiff’s requests for admission as “very specific” concerning entries or events on
specific days and times of materials plaintiff clearly must have had in his possession when
drafting. Id. Nelson also objects to various requests because plaintiff did not attach the
documents to the request for admission in compliance with the rules for Nelson’s review when
responding to the request for admissions. Id.
The court has spent an inordinate amount of time reviewing plaintiff’s requests for
admission and defendant Nelson’s responses. (Doc. No. 119, Exh. B). For purposes of judicial
efficiency, the court will not recite to all of plaintiff’s 147 requests for admission herein, but
agrees with defendant that the requests for admission are very specific-- so much so the requests
do not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 pertaining to “facts” within the purview of Rule 26(b)(1),
particularly when keeping in mind the issues in this case against Nelson. As to Nelson, plaintiff
pursues a First amendment retaliation claim stemming from “re-housing” inmate Jones with
plaintiff for 7 to 8 days, when no physical altercation occurred between the two inmates, and
plaintiff was moved from the cell by another correctional official and assigned a new cellmate.
By way of example, plaintiff’s request for admission 1 and Nelson’s response is as
follows:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
Admit that from January 15, 2014 through June 26, 2014, you
worked as a floor officer in H.U. #2, during Third watch, on at least
one hundred-fifteen (115) different occasions.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:

27
28

Defendant objects that the request is unduly burdensome, not
relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, and not proportional to
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the needs of the case. Without waiving the objections, Defendant
admits that he worked as a floor officer on third watch in Unit 2
during the time in question. Defendant is unable to admit or deny
the remainder of the request.
Id. at 33. The number of times defendant Nelson worked on watch for the unit is not likely to
narrow the issues for trial concerning plaintiff’s retaliation claim for “re-housing” plaintiff with
inmate Jones. Further, in response to plaintiff’s question, Nelson admitted that he was on watch
during the relevant time in question. Nelson’s answer is proper. Similarly, plaintiff’s request no.
2 asks about his housing assignment for the same period of time, January 15, 2014 through June
26, 2014, and Nelson’s response “admits that plaintiff was housed in Unit 2 during the time in
question.” Id. at 35. Nelson’s further response that “he has no independent recollection” whether
plaintiff was housed in cell 104 is a proper response. Due to the degree of specificity of
numerous requests or the extended period of time covered by the request, defendant Nelson
admitted that portion of the requests or explained that he lacked an “independent recollection” to
explain why he could neither admit not deny the requests. See also Request Nos. 9-18, 22, 2425. Regarding request nos. 28-147, defendant Nelson objected to the request on the basis that the
propounded requests were “excessive” and posed “an undue burden” on him, or referenced
documents not attached to the requests. Id. at 40-81. Defendant Nelson further objected that the
propounded requests were not related to the claims or defenses. Id. Notably, various requests
referenced names of various inmates not relevant to the claims in this case, or asked about
specified dates or range of dates and specific hours of time, requested information about
documents not attached to the requests, or asked whether after the relevant time period, Nelson
considered various correctional officials who are not named as defendants “to be a reasonable
prison official.” See Request no. 143, 144-147. Plaintiff does not define what he means by
“reasonable” anywhere in the requests.
The court agrees that the requests are excessive and unduly burdensome. The vast
majority of the requests do not ask about the important facts but focus on irrelevant minutiae.
With regard to those requests about relevant facts, defendant Nelson has provided proper
responses. Having considered the claims at issue and having reviewed the requests and
6

1
2
3
4
5
6

responses, the court finds defendant Nelson made a good faith attempt to provide well-reasoned
responses to plaintiff’s 147 requests for admissions, made proper admissions and denials, and
raised proper objections. While some of the objections did contain boilerplate responses,
defendant nonetheless considered plaintiff’s requests and made responses when the request was
relevant to the claims. Therefore, defendant will not be required to provide further responses to
any of the request for admissions plaintiff propounded on Nelson.

7

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED:

8
9

1. Plaintiff’s Rule 36(a)(6) motion (Doc. No. 119) is resolved to the extent the relief
plaintiff seeks therein is denied.

10
11

2. Defendant Nelson is not required to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s request for
admissions.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated:

April 6, 2021
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7