Doster v. Beard et al
Filing
68
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending that Defendant Leon's Motion to Dismiss be Denied, and Motion to Be Granted re 58 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/29/18. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
1:15-cv-01415-DAD-GSA-PC
DAMIEN T. DOSTER,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT
LEON’S MOTION TO DISMISS BE
DENIED, AND MOTION TO COMPEL
BE GRANTED
(ECF No. 58.)
vs.
JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al.,
15
Defendants.
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS
16
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
19
Damien T. Doster (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
20
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds
21
with Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on March 25, 2016, against defendants Chief
22
Deputy Warden F. Vasquez, Yard Captain P. Llamas, Sgt. Sarah Leon, and Maintenance
23
Engineer Ric Pavich, on Plaintiff’s claim for deprivation of hot water in violation of the Eighth
24
Amendment, and related negligence claims.1
25
26
27
28
1
On March 29, 2016, the court found that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint stated Eighth
Amendment claims for adverse conditions of confinement against defendants Vasquez, Llamas, Leon, and Pavich,
but no other claims. (ECF No. 14.) On September 26, 2017, the court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims except
for the claim that he was deprived of hot water in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 60.) Therefore,
this case now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint against defendants Vasquez, Llamas, Leon, and Pavich,
only on Plaintiff’s claim that he was deprived of hot water.
1
1
On July 5, 2016, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order establishing a
2
deadline of December 2, 2016, for the parties to conduct discovery, including the filing of
3
motions to compel. (ECF No. 19.) The discovery deadline has not been extended.
4
On January 4, 2017, Defendant Leon (“Defendant”) filed a motion to compel further
5
discovery responses, which the court deemed timely. (ECF Nos. 42, 50.) In the motion,
6
Defendant argued that while Plaintiff had provided some responses to discovery requests, the
7
responses were incomplete and evasive, and Plaintiff did not verify his responses under oath.
8
Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion to compel. On April 13, 2017, the court granted
9
the motion in part and ordered Plaintiff to provide further responses to Defendant Leon’s
10
Interrogatories numbers 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 22; Requests for Production of
11
Documents numbers 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 17; and Requests for Admissions numbers 4, 6,
12
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 56, 66, and 67. (ECF No. 50.)
13
On July 13, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this case for Plaintiff’s failure to
14
comply with the court’s April 13, 2017, discovery order, or in the alternative, to compel further
15
discovery responses from Plaintiff. (ECF No. 58.) On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed an
16
opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 62.) On October 30, 2017, Defendant filed a reply to the
17
opposition. (ECF No. 63.)
18
II.
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE2
19
A.
20
The events at issue in this case arose at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) in Corcoran,
21
California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the California Department of
22
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Defendants Vasquez, Llamas, Leon, and Pavich were
23
employees of the CDCR at CSP during the relevant time. Plaintiff’s allegations follow.
Allegations
24
On May 18, 2015, the hot water was turned off to the housing unit and in Plaintiff’s
25
solitary cell. On June 3, 2015, defendants Vasquez and Leon were informed that Plaintiff’s cell
26
had no hot or warm water. Defendants Vasquez and Leon told Plaintiff the hot water would be
27
28
2
This summary reflects only Plaintiff’s claims that he was deprived of hot water.
2
1
back in a week or a few days, and to quit crying and complaining. This went on for months
2
while Plaintiff’s requests for interviews went unanswered.
3
On June 6, 2015, Plaintiff sent a CDCR-22 form request for interview to defendant
4
Llamas, informing Llamas of the adverse conditions. Defendant Llamas responded that it was
5
a maintenance issue and could not be corrected at her level.
6
On July 1, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a CDCR-22 form request for interview to defendant
7
Pavich, informing Pavich of the adverse conditions which arose on May 18, 2015. On July 15,
8
2015, defendant Pavich responded that he was working on the hot water loop, and the hot water
9
would be running by July 30, 2015.
10
Defendants Vasquez, Llamas, Leon, and Pavich all had authority to declare Plaintiff’s
11
cell unsafe for occupancy until the hot water was restored, but they did not do so. Plaintiff
12
suffered physical injuries, mental and emotional pain and suffering, humiliation, and fear.
13
Plaintiff requests monetary damages and declaratory relief.
14
B.
15
This case now proceeds against defendants Vasquez, Llamas, Leon, and Pavich, on
16
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims that he was deprived of hot water, and related state law
17
negligence claims.
18
III.
Claims
SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDER
19
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) provides, in part:
20
(A)
For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party . . . fails to obey an order to
21
provide or permit discovery, . . the court where the action is pending may issue
22
further just orders. They may include the following:
23
(i)
directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts
24
be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party
25
claims;
26
(ii)
27
28
prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated
claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;
(iii)
striking pleadings in whole or in part;
3
1
(iv)
staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
2
(v)
dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
3
(vi)
rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or
4
(vii)
treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an
5
6
7
order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
....
(C)
Payment of Expenses. Instead of or in addition to the orders above, the court
8
must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay
9
the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless
10
the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of
11
expenses unjust.
12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.
13
Only two conditions are required to put into consideration the array of sanctions
14
specified in Rule 37(b): (1) a prior order and (2) a violation of the order. Hullinger v. Anand,
15
No. CV157185SJOFFMX, 2016 WL 7444620, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2016), review denied,
16
case remanded, No. CV1507185SJOFFMX, 2016 WL 7444623 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2016). A
17
failure by a party to comply with a court order is sanctionable under this rule, regardless of the
18
reasons. Id.; see Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S.
19
A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 208, 78 S. Ct. 1087, 1094, 2 L.Ed. 2d 1255 (1958) (“Whatever its
20
reasons, petitioner did not comply with the production order. Such reasons, and the willfulness
21
or good faith of petitioner, can hardly affect the fact of noncompliance and are relevant only to
22
the path which the District Court might follow in dealing with petitioner’s failure to comply.”);
23
see also David v. Hooker, Ltd., 560 F.2d 412, 420 (9th Cir. 1977) (“[I]n view of the possibility
24
of light sanctions, even a negligent failure [to obey an order] should come within [Rule 37].”).
25
“[E]xcept for the sanction of dismissal, an imposition of sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)
26
does not require willfulness, fault, or bad faith. Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.,
27
259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court has wide discretion to select an appropriate
28
sanction, but the sanction should be targeted to address the misconduct or prejudice resulting
4
1
from the misconduct.
2
sanctions, once a violation is demonstrated, the disobedient party bears the burden of showing
3
that the failure was justified or that special circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
4
Id., citing Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2012 WL 2862613, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. July
5
11, 2012).
Hullinger, 2016 WL 7444620, at *8.
With respect to monetary
6
“The Ninth Circuit has set forth five factors to be considered by the court in selecting
7
the appropriate sanction: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
8
court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4)
9
the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less
10
drastic sanctions.’” Id., quoting Valley Engineers Inc. v. Electric Engineering Co., 158 F.3d
11
1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998).
12
IV.
DEFENDANT LEON’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR COMPEL
13
Defendant Leon requests dismissal of this case for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
14
court’s discovery order issued on April 13, 2017, or in the alternative, that Plaintiff be required
15
to make supplemental responses to discovery request. The court’s order required, in part, that
16
Plaintiff provide Defendant with supplemental responses to interrogatories numbers 4, 7, 8, 9,
17
10, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 22, within thirty days. (ECF No. 50.) Defendant asserts that on or about
18
June 29, 2017, Plaintiff sent supplemental responses, but the interrogatory responses were
19
mostly identical to his previous inadequate responses. Defendant argues that sanctions should
20
be imposed because Plaintiff did not make a good faith effort to comply with the court’s order,
21
despite Defendant providing Plaintiff multiple opportunities to do so. Defendant requests that
22
her motion to compel or dismiss be deemed timely given the court’s April 13, 2017, order and
23
Plaintiff’s failure to timely submit proper supplemental responses in compliance with the order.
24
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that “defendant’s motion to compel amounts to
25
unjustified harassment and an attempt to intimidate and/or take advantage of [Plaintiff’s]
26
litigation inexperience.” (ECF No. 62 at 2:3-5.) Plaintiff asserts that soon after Defendant
27
advised him that he had a duty to supplement his discovery responses, he supplemented them.
28
On June 16, 2017, Defendant sent him a letter reminding him of his duty, and on June 29, 2017,
5
1
he supplemented his responses. (Doster Decl., ECF No. 62 at 71 ¶4.) Plaintiff argues that his
2
actions in failing to address all of the interrogatories were harmless because the court dismissed
3
most of his claims, which resulted in most of Defendant’s interrogatories being irrelevant.
4
Plaintiff then proceeds, in his opposition, to respond again to Defendant’s interrogatories
5
numbers 7, 8, 10, 14, and 20. (ECF No. 62 at 2:18-4:6.)
6
Discussion
7
The court finds Defendant Leon’s motion to dismiss or compel, filed on July 31, 2017,
8
to be timely, due to the fact that the same discovery issues have been pending since Defendant
9
filed her first motion to compel on January 4, 2017. (ECF No. 50).
10
The court finds that Plaintiff failed to fully comply with the court’s April 13, 2017,
11
order, including the thirty-day deadline to provide responses (ECF No. 50). However, the
12
Ninth Circuit’s five factors do not weigh in favor of dismissal of the case based on Plaintiff’s
13
failure to comply.
14
“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.’”
15
Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th
16
Cir. 1999)), and here, the action has been pending since it was filed on September 17, 2015,
17
and discovery issues remain pending since discovery was opened in July 2016. The court
18
cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not properly respond
19
to court orders. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
20
Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in
21
and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). Here, while the resolution of
22
discovery has been delayed, the court finds no prejudice to Defendant that would warrant
23
dismissal of this case. There is no evidence that Plaintiff acted in bad faith or with willful
24
refusal to comply with the court’s order.
25
discovery requests three times, once initially, again in response to the court’s order, and again
26
in opposition to the present motion. The deficiencies in Plaintiff’s responses appear to be a
27
result of his inexperience in litigation. Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner who has not brought any
28
prior lawsuits while in prison, (ECF No. 13 at 1), and he attests that he is a layman unskilled at
Plaintiff attempted to respond to Defendant’s
6
Plaintiff’s explanation that he did not respond to some of
1
law, (ECF No 62 at 4:22).
2
Defendant’s interrogatories because he thought they were irrelevant after the magistrate judge
3
recommended the dismissal of some of Plaintiff’s claims (ECF No. 56), is plausible. In fact,
4
Defendant has not been prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure to respond to those interrogatories
5
because on September 26, 2017, most of those interrogatories did become irrelevant when most
6
of Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed. (ECF No. 60). Therefore, the third factor weighs against
7
dismissal.
8
Although the court finds monetary sanctions of little use given that Plaintiff is a
9
prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, other lesser sanctions are available. Defendant requests
10
that if this case is not dismissed, Plaintiff be required to provide additional supplemental
11
responses to Defendant’s interrogatories. This solution would allow the litigation to move
12
forward, benefitting all of the parties. Therefore, this factor weighs against dismissal.
13
14
Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always
weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.
15
The court’s order of April 13, 2017, required Plaintiff to provide Defendant with further
16
responses to interrogatories numbers 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 22. Only three of the
17
interrogatories -- numbers 10, 14, and 20 – are relevant to Plaintiff’s hot water claim. The
18
other interrogatories concern claims about drinking water, overflow of human waste, and lack
19
of cleaning supplies, which have been dismissed from this case.
20
each of the three relevant interrogatories.
21
///
22
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
23
24
The court now addresses
Describe any interactions you had with Defendant Leon concerning plumbing issues.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
25
“Refers Defendant to Defendant’s response to RFA No 7.(6): Defendant admits he
26
spoke to me after I filed a CDCR 602, However, plaintiff has not had any interaction with the
27
defendant beyond June 3, 2015 concerning the matter.”
28
///
7
1
DEFENDANT’S POSITION:
2
3
Plaintiff has not responded to the interrogatory.
COURT’S APRIL 13, 2017, RULING:
4
Plaintiff’s response does not describe all of the interactions between Defendant Leon
5
and Plaintiff concerning plumbing issues, as requested by the interrogatory. Fed. R. Civ. P.
6
37(a)(4). [Plaintiff] is ordered to make a further response to this interrogatory, discussing all
7
such interactions.
8
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
“Plaintiff spoke with defendant Leon numerous times about the plumbing, while being
9
10
escorted to and from the yard between May 2015, and July 2015.”
11
FURTHER RESPONSE (ECF No. 62) TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
12
Again, on 7/24/17, the Court concluded in defendants [sic] motion for summary
13
judgment pertaining to plaintiff’s claims about plumbing issues be dismissed, was granted in
14
part and denied in part, and that the case proceed only on plaintiff’s claims concerning the
15
depravation of “HOT WATER” (see ECF No. 29 page 18).
16
DEFENDANT’S POSITION:
17
Plaintiff has not responded to the interrogatory describe all of the interactions between
18
Defendant Leon and Plaintiff concerning plumbing issues, as requested by the interrogatory.
19
Instead, he now claims he does not have to answer the interrogatory any more. The hot water
20
issue was a plumbing issue and therefore, Defendant Leon is still entitled to an adequate
21
response.
22
COURT’S RULING:
23
This interrogatory concerns plumbing issues, which includes Plaintiff’s claim for
24
deprivation of hot water. Plaintiff’s response does not describe all of the interactions between
25
Defendant Leon and Plaintiff concerning plumbing issues (including hot water issues), as
26
requested by the interrogatory. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). Plaintiff should be ordered to make a
27
further response to this interrogatory, discussing all such interactions. If Plaintiff does not
28
///
8
1
remember the interactions or cannot respond beyond what he has already answered, he should
2
so state.
3
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
4
5
Describe any interactions you had with Defendant Pavich concerning plumbing issues.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
“The interaction Plaintiff had with defendant Pavich concerning the plumbing issues
6
7
were through work orders.”
8
DEFENDANT’S POSITION:
Plaintiff’s response is unclear and not responsive. Plaintiff has failed to describe what
9
10
types of issues were discussed and on what occasions.
11
COURT’S APRIL 13, 2017, RULING:
12
Plaintiff has not described interactions, as requested by the interrogatory. Fed. R. Civ.
13
P. 37(a)(4). Rather, Plaintiff has described the means of communication used by Plaintiff and
14
Defendant Pavich. Plaintiff is ordered to make a further response, describing any interactions
15
he had with Defendant Pavich concerning plumbing issues.
16
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
“The interaction Plaintiff had with Defendant Pavich concerning plumbing were
17
18
through work orders.
19
FURTHER RESPONSE (ECF No. 62) TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
20
During the time frame of these issue, plaintiff was in the security housing unit (SHU).
21
The only interaction plaintiff had with defendant Pavich about the plumbing issues were
22
through work orders and his response to them. Defendant Pavich [sic] office was not located in
23
4A-2R housing unit. Again, on 7/24/17, the Court concluded in defendants [sic] motion for
24
summary judgment pertaining to plaintiff’s claims about plumbing issues be dismissed, was
25
granted in part and denied in part, and that the case proceed only on plaintiff’s claims
26
concerning depravation of “HOT WATER” (see ECF No. 29 page 18.)
27
///
28
///
9
1
DEFENDANT’S POSITION:
2
Plaintiff’s response still fails to address the interrogatory as set forth in the Court’s
3
order. Plaintiff has not described the interactions, as requested by the interrogatory. Fed. R. Civ. P.
4
37(a)(4). Rather, Plaintiff has described the means of communication used by Plaintiff and
5
Defendant Pavich. Additionally, Plaintiff now claims he does not have to answer the interrogatory
6
any more. The hot water issue was a plumbing issue and therefore, Defendant Leon is still entitled
7
to an adequate response.
8
COURT’S RULING:
This interrogatory concerns plumbing issues, which includes Plaintiff’s claim for
9
10
deprivation of hot water.
11
interrogatory. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). Plaintiff should be ordered to make a further response,
12
describing the interactions he had with Defendant Pavich concerning plumbing issues
13
(including hot water issues). If Plaintiff does not remember the interactions or cannot respond
14
beyond what he has already answered, he should so state.
15
///
16
INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
17
Plaintiff has not described interactions, as requested by the
Identify all documents that support each injury you contend is related to the allegations
18
raised in your Complaint.
19
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
20
“Refers defendants to Plaintiff’s medical file the months of May through September
21
2015. All medication proscribed and both affidavit statements of Mr. Gilfredo B. Magana, and
22
Mr. Clarence E. Reese.”
23
DEFENDANT’S POSITION:
24
Plaintiff’s response is evasive and incomplete. Plaintiff must point to specific dates of
25
treatment rather than his medical file, generally.
26
COURT’S APRIL 13, 2017, RULING:
27
Plaintiff must state with more specificity which documents are responsive to this
28
interrogatory. As Plaintiff’s medical file may be voluminous, Plaintiff must direct Defendants
10
1
to each specific document supporting his assertion that he sustained injuries, and where the
2
documents can be found, so that Defendants can find the documents without a burdensome
3
search. Plaintiff is advised to identify such documents by date. Upon request to prison
4
officials, Plaintiff has access to his medical file. Plaintiff must search for documents that
5
support each injury, as requested.
6
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
7
Defendants have equal access to plaintiff’s medical file during the relevant period, the
8
months of May through July 2015. All medication prescribed to plaintiff during the relevant
9
time period, which plaintiff has already produced.
10
FURTHER RESPONSE (ECF No. 62) TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
11
See declaration of Damien Doster, at 10. Paragraph 10 states: I did not keep a record of
12
the particular dates I saw and/or attempted to speak with Leon because I did not know the
13
extent of (CSP) Corcoran hot water problem and simply thought it would be repaired in a day
14
or so, not months later. (see exhibit pictures)
15
DEFENDANT’S POSITION:
16
Plaintiff has attempted to comply with this request by attaching the documents to his
17
opposition. However, Plaintiff still has not stated with specificity the documents he relies on.
18
COURT’S RULING:
19
Plaintiff should not be required to provide any futher response to interrogatory number
20
20. The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s declaration (ECF No. 62 at 71) and the documents
21
attached to Plaintiff’s opposition (Id. at 34-69). The court finds that Plaintiff has made a good
22
faith effort to respond to interrogatory number 20 and should not be required to “state with
23
specificity the documents he relies on.”
24
V.
25
26
27
28
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Defendant Leon’s motion to dismiss
should be denied and Defendant Leon’s motion to compel should be granted in part.
Accordingly IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1.
Defendant Leon’s motion to dismiss, filed on July 31, 2017, be DENIED;
11
1
2.
2
3
filed;
3.
4
5
4.
Plaintiff be required to serve Defendant Leon with further responses to
Defendant Leon’s interrogatories numbers 10 and 14, within thirty days;
5.
8
9
Defendant Leon’s motion to compel, filed on July 31, 2017, be GRANTED IN
PART;
6
7
Defendant Leon’s motion to compel, filed on July 31, 2017, be deemed timely
Plaintiff be advised not to file his responses with the court. Local Rules 250.2,
250.3, 250.4; and
6.
Plaintiff be required to date and sign his responses to the iInterrogatories, under
penalty of perjury.3
10
11
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
12
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
13
(14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file
14
written objections with the court.
15
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be
16
served and filed within ten (10) days after the date the objections are filed. The parties are
17
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights
18
on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.
19
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
20
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 29, 2018
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
3
The responses must be dated and signed by Plaintiff, attesting under penalty of perjury to facts known
by Plaintiff, in substantially the following form: AI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed on (date) . (Signature).@
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?