Cordoba v. California Medical Facility et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/12/2012 DENYING plaintiff's 31 motion to compel. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WILLIAM CORDOBA,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

No. CIV S-10-2944 DAD P

vs.
KATHLEEN L. DICKINSON, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

17

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that fellow inmate J. Neri

18

assaulted him while they were waiting for prison officials to open the Unit II West Gate at

19

California Medical Facility. Plaintiff claims that defendants Viera and Rivers failed to protect

20

him from the serious harm posed to him from his attacker in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

21

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel.

22

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

23

In his motion to compel, plaintiff argues that the court should compel defendants

24

Viera and Rivers to provide him, or the court for in camera inspection, with further responses to

25

his request for production of documents. Specifically, plaintiff believes that the defendants

26

should have to produce documents from inmate J. Neri’s central file, including all documents
1

1

related to the rules violation report inmate Neri received after attacking plaintiff and all

2

documents related to inmate Neri’s placement in administrative segregation. Plaintiff also

3

believes that the defendants should be required to produce more documents related to “Operation

4

Plan #4” for inmate count and movement on July 12, 2008. In plaintiff’s view, the document

5

defendants produced in response to his initial discovery request is irrelevant because it does not

6

address yard recall or the monitoring of inmate traffic at the Unit II West Gate. (Pl.’s Mot. to

7

Compel at 1-2.)

8
9

In opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel, counsel for defendants Viera and
Rivers argues that the documents plaintiff is requesting from inmate Neri’s central file are

10

confidential. Counsel also argues that prison officials have designated plaintiff and inmate Neri

11

as enemies, so that producing inmate Neri’s confidential file documents to plaintiff could

12

jeopardize the safety of inmate Neri, plaintiff, and prison staff and other inmates. In addition, as

13

to the documents related to “Operation Plan #4”, counsel for defendants argues that plaintiff

14

initially requested any and all documents describing CMF’s policy regarding the monitoring of

15

inmate traffic during yard unlocks and yard recall on July 12, 2008. Defendants responded by

16

providing plaintiff with “Operation Plan #4,” dated July 2010, because the plan in force on July

17

12, 2008 had been purged and was no longer available. After further investigation, however,

18

defendants located “Operation Plan #4”, dated April 2008, which was in effect on the day in

19

question, July 12, 2008, and provided a copy of it to plaintiff. Defense counsel notes that the

20

defendants production of documents in this regard has been responsive to plaintiff’s request

21

because “Operation Plan #4” contains information about staff responsibilities during inmate

22

movement. Finally, counsel contends that the defendants are unaware of the existence of any

23

document containing information pertaining specifically to monitoring of inmate traffic at the

24

Unit II West Gate. (Debs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel at 1-5.)

25

/////

26

/////
2

1

DISCUSSION

2

Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain

3

discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.”

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may

5

order a party to provide further responses to “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or

6

response.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3).

7

As to plaintiff’s request for documents from inmate Neri’s central file, the court

8

finds defendants’ objections to be well taken. Typically, an inmate does not have access to

9

another inmate’s central file. See Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 15 § 3370(b) (“Except by means of a valid

10

authorization, subpoena, or court order, no inmate or parolee shall have access to another’s case

11

records file, unit health records, or component thereof.”). Here, plaintiff and inmate Neri are

12

designated enemies and therefore a strong penological justification exists to deny plaintiff access

13

to inmate Neri’s files. Nor does this court find that in camera review by the court of inmate

14

Neri’s central file would be appropriate. As an initial matter, while plaintiff speculates that there

15

may be relevant information in inmate Neri’s central file, he has made no specific assertions or

16

showing as to what information he seeks or expects to find there. Plaintiff is proceeding against

17

defendants Viera and Rivers in this action. Insofar as there may be any relevant information

18

about the conduct of defendants Viera and Rivers mentioned in inmate Neri’s files, plaintiff

19

could and should have sought to discover that information directly from the defendants through

20

interrogatories, requests for admissions or other available discovery devices.

21

As to plaintiff’s request for documents related to “Operation Plan #4,” it appears

22

that the defendants have produced all relevant documents on the subject. Plaintiff has not made

23

any showing that further documents are available for production. Nor can this court compel the

24

defendants to produce documents that do not exist or are not in their possession or control. See

25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). See also United States v. Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers,

26

/////
3

1

870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989) (a party seeking production of documents bears the burden

2

of showing the opposing party has control over them).

3

CONCLUSION

4

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

5

plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 31) is denied.

6

DATED: March 12, 2012.

7
8
9
10

DAD:9
cord2944.mtc

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4