Ortega v. Reyes, et al.,

Filing 63

ORDER signed by District Judge Susan Oki Mollway on 5/27/11 ORDERING pltf's motion to compel 52 DENIED. (Carlos, K)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAZARUS ORTEGA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
)
CORRECTIONS AND
)
REHABILITATION CORRECTIONAL )
OFFICIALS DEASON, HUTCHINGS, )
COSTA; WILLIAMSON, REYES;
)
AND WALKER,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________ )

2: 08-CV-00588 SOM
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Plaintiff Lazarus Ortega, a prisoner proceeding pro se,
filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, see ECF No. 52, arguing that
Defendants failed to timely respond to his document production
request and contending that Defendants failed to respond at all
with respect to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 4,
and 5.

Ortega’s motion is denied.
Discovery is generally governed by Rule 26 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides: “Parties may
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . .

For good cause,

the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the
subject matter involved in the action.

Relevant information need

not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
As an initial matter, Ortega argues that Defendants

untimely responded to his discovery request.

He is mistaken.

Ortega sent his discovery request on September 18, 2010.
Pursuant to the court’s September 29, 2010, Discovery and
Scheduling Order, “Responses to written discovery requests shall
be due forty-five days after the request is served.”
40, ¶ 2.

See ECF No.

Defendants timely answered the discovery request on

November 2, 2010, 45 days after Ortega sent the request.
Ortega next argues that Defendants entirely failed to
respond to his Document Production Requests Nos. 1, 4, and 5.
However, Defendants did respond to each of those requests.
Although Defendants objected to the requests, arguing that they
were overly broad, vague, and sought private, privileged, and
work product information, Defendants provided documents in
response to Document Production Requests Nos. 1 and 4.

Ortega

does not explain why he thinks the responses were insufficient or
why the objections were improper, but instead makes the general
assertion that he is entitled to the documents requested because
the documents might be relevant.

Relevancy alone is not

sufficient to grant the motion here.
Ortega asks this court to rule on his motion in a
vacuum.

That is, the court has no record indicating what

2

documents may have been withheld.

With respect to Document

Production Request No. 1, which seeks documents pertaining to the
incident that injured Ortega, it appears that Defendants have
produced all nonprivileged documents.

Accordingly, to the extent

Ortega seeks to compel production of documents concerning his
Document Production Request No. 1, the court denies Ortega’s
motion, given the absence of any discussion by him of what more
he seeks and on what grounds.
Document Production Request No. 4 seeks discovery of
documents concerning cell movements of inmates.

Defendants noted

that they no longer had the policy in effect in September 2006,
but provided “the OP 131 which is no longer in effect and will
produce the DOM section that is in effect.”

Again, Ortega does

not indicate what more he wants and on what grounds.

If he seeks

records of the specific movements of specific inmates, he should
explain way.
Document Production Request No. 5 seeks the employee
files of Defendants and asks for a privilege log of any document
Defendants claim is privileged.

This request is overly broad, as

it appears to seek all of the information in Defendants’ employee
files.

Because of the unrestricted scope of the request, it is

overly burdensome; it almost certainly covers some irrelevant
information.

Defendants cannot be faulted for not producing

documents in response to this request.

3

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(2)(C); Kabakow v. Am. Savings Bank, 152 F.3d 926 (9th Cir.
1998) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying a motion to compel production of documents when a
request was overbroad, burdensome, and unlikely to lead to
discovery of admissible evidence).
In Ortega’s motion, he clarifies that, in Document
Production Request No. 5, he is only seeking documents in
Defendants’ employee files pertaining to complaints made about
Defendants.

In the interests of judicial economy, and because

Ortega is proceeding pro se, the court orders Defendants to
respond to this “clarified request” no later than June 27, 2011.
If any relevant, nonprivileged document exists, Defendants must
produce the document subject to an appropriate protective order,
produce a redacted version of the document, or, if a privilege is
asserted such that a document is not being produced, provide
Ortega with a privilege log.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 27, 2011.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge

Ortega v. Deason, et al., 2: 08-CV-00588 SOM; ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

4