Chatman v. Felker et al

Filing 140

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 07/08/13 regarding 99 Motion to Compel discovery. (See order for further details) (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHARLES CHATMAN,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. 2:09-cv-1028 JAM CKD P

vs.
TOM FELKER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

17

rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The remaining defendants are either former or current

18

employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff has filed a

19

motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 99). In light of the briefing provided concerning

20

plaintiff’s motion, and in light of the entire record, the court orders as follows:

21
22
23

1. Defendant Harrod need not provide further responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories 3, 7
or 13 as those interrogatories have been adequately answered.
2. In interrogatory number 11, plaintiff asks defendant Williams “Have prisoners filed

24

grievances against you regarding issues in relation to the law library?” In his complaint, plaintiff

25

alleges Williams retaliated against plaintiff for complaining about law library matters and that

26

Williams was employed in the law library.
1

1

Plaintiff’s interrogatory is over-broad. Furthermore, the court finds that this interrogatory

2

is not “reasonably calculated” to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” as required by

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) because the mere fact that a prisoner had filed a grievance against defendant

4

Williams with respect to her duties in the High Desert State Prison law library is not relevant to

5

any of plaintiff’s remaining claims, nor has plaintiff indicated how an affirmative answer to his

6

interrogatory would, or even could, lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant

7

Williams need not answer further. Interrogatory number 16 directed to defendant Uribe,

8

interrogatory number 2 directed to defendant Smith, interrogatory number 4 directed to defendant

9

Probst and interrogatories 2 and 14 directed to defendant Harper are all similar to interrogatory

10

number 11 directed to defendant Williams in that plaintiff asks those defendants whether they

11

have had prisoner grievances filed against them for, among other things, “abuse.” Those

12

defendants need not answer further for the same reason the court will not compel Williams to

13

answer further.

14
15
16

3. Defendant Williams need not provide a further response to plaintiff’s interrogatory
number 12 as that interrogatory has been adequately answered.
4. In interrogatory number 13, plaintiff asks defendant Williams “Have prisoners sued

17

you in regards to their allegations concerning the law library?” The court finds that this

18

interrogatory is not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” as

19

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) because the mere fact that a prisoner has sued defendant

20

Williams with respect to acts related to her duties in the High Desert State Prison law library is

21

not relevant to any of plaintiff’s remaining claims, nor has plaintiff indicated how an affirmative

22

answer to his interrogatory would, or even could, lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

23

Defendant Williams need not answer further. Interrogatory number 17 directed to defendant

24

Uribe, interrogatory number 3 directed to defendant Smith, interrogatory number 5 directed to

25

defendant Probst and interrogatory number 15 directed to defendant Harper are all similar to

26

interrogatory number 13 directed to defendant Williams in that plaintiff asks those defendants
2

1

whether they have been sued by prisoners for, among other things, “abuse.” Those defendants

2

need not answer further for the same reason the court will not compel Williams to answer

3

further.

4

5. In interrogatory number 14, plaintiff asks defendant Williams “Have you been

5

suspended from your employment with CDCR?” The court finds that this interrogatory is not

6

“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” as required by Fed. R.

7

Civ. P. 26(b) because the mere fact defendant Williams has been suspended from work is not

8

relevant to any of plaintiff’s remaining claims, nor has plaintiff indicated how an affirmative

9

answer to his interrogatory would, or even could, lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Defendant Williams need not answer further.
6. Defendant Uribe need not provide a further response to plaintiff’s interrogatory
number 4 as that interrogatory has been adequately answered.
7. Defendant Smith need not provide further responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories 1, 4
or 7 as those interrogatories have been adequately answered.
8. Defendant Harper need not provide a further response to plaintiff’s interrogatories 3
and 4 as those interrogatories have been adequately answered.
9. In interrogatory number 4 directed to defendant Patton, plaintiff asks, “Have you been

18

disciplined as a result of complaints filed against you by prisoners?” The court finds that this

19

interrogatory is not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” as

20

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) because the mere fact that defendant Patton had been

21

disciplined as a result of complaints filed by prisoners is not relevant to any of plaintiff’s

22

remaining claims nor has plaintiff indicated how an affirmative answer to his interrogatory

23

would, or even could, lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Patton need not

24

answer further.

25

10. In request to admit number 14 directed at defendant Patton, plaintiff asks defendant

26

Patton to admit or deny wether he has been suspended for assaulting a prisoner. The court finds
3

1

that this interrogatory is not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

2

evidence” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) because the mere fact that defendant Patton had

3

been suspended for assaulting a prisoner is not relevant to plaintiff’s remaining claim against

4

Patton which concerns denial of access to medical care. Furthermore, plaintiff has not indicated

5

how Patton’s admitting request to admit 14 would, or even could, lead to discovery of admissible

6

evidence. Defendant Patton need not answer further.

7
8
9

11. Defendant Patton need not provide a further response to plaintiff’s request to admit
number 15 as that request has been adequately answered.
12. In request to admit number 16 directed to defendant Patton, plaintiff asks Patton to

10

admit or deny whether he has been reprimanded or suspended as a result of a prisoner grievance

11

filed against him. The court finds that this interrogatory is not “reasonably calculated to lead to

12

the discovery of admissible evidence” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) because the mere fact

13

that defendant Patton had been reprimanded or suspended as the result of a prisoner grievance is

14

not relevant to plaintiff’s remaining claim against Patton which concerns denial of access to

15

medical care. Furthermore, plaintiff has not indicated how Patton’s admitting request to admit

16

16 would, or even could, lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Patton need not

17

answer further.

18
19
20

13. Defendant Harrod need not provide further responses to plaintiff’s request for
admissions 1 or 2 as those requests have been adequately answered.
14. With respect to request to produce 4 directed to defendants Felker, Harper, Harrod,

21

Keating, McDonald, Perez, Probst, Smith Uribe and Williams, those defendants shall serve upon

22

plaintiff, within 14 days, any documents indicating where defendant Probst worked inside High

23

Desert State Prison on July 5, 2007 to the extent such documents have not already been provided

24

to plaintiff.

25
26

15. With respect to request to produce 7 directed to defendants Felker, Harper, Harrod,
Keating, McDonald, Perez, Probst, Smith Uribe and Williams, those defendants shall serve upon
4

1

plaintiff, within 14 days, any documents indicating where defendant Uribe worked inside High

2

Desert State Prison on March 8, 2007, to the extent such documents have not already been

3

provided to plaintiff.

4

16. With respect to request to produce 20 directed to defendants Felker, Harper, Harrod,

5

Keating, McDonald, Perez, Probst, Smith Uribe and Williams, those defendants shall serve upon

6

plaintiff, within 14 days, any documents indicating where defendant Harrod worked inside High

7

Desert State Prison on August 12, 2007 to the extent such documents have not already been

8

provided to plaintiff.

9

17. Defendants Felker, Harper, Harrod, Keating, McDonald, Perez, Probst, Smith Uribe

10

and Williams need not respond further to request to produce number 21 as that request has been

11

adequately answered.

12

Dated: July 8, 2013

13

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18

1
chat1028.36(dis)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5