Young v. Jefferies et al

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/15/15 ordering defendant to respond to plaintiff's allegation that defendant has not complied with the court's discovery order. (See order for further details) (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS D. YOUNG,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-2673-KJM-EFB P

v.
OFFICER SANDOVAL,

15

ORDER

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously granted his motion for an order compelling discovery, ECF

19

No. 26, and ordered the defendant to provide amended responses to plaintiff’s requests for

20

production. ECF No. 33. The order directed defendant to amend his responses to plaintiff’s

21

requests for (1) documents relating to CDC’s Zone-1 Policy, (2) plaintiff’s central file and

22

disciplinary reports, and (3) defendant’s shooting range score records and shooting training. Id.

23

The district judge subsequently denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the discovery

24

order. ECF No. 38.
The parties now dispute whether defendant has complied with the discovery order. The

25
26

defendant filed a document entitled “Notice of Compliance With Discovery Orders,” ECF No. 39,

27

to which plaintiff responded, arguing in essence that the order has been violated. ECF No. 40 at

28

/////
1

1

1.1 Plaintiff contends that the defendant’s amended response to the request for documents

2

relating to CDC’s Zone-1 Policy consists only of a half-page explanation and is therefore

3

“incomplete and does not disclose any detailed information.”2 Id. As to the request for his

4

central file and disciplinary reports, plaintiff claims that defendant has failed to produce copies of

5

the documents or provide plaintiff the opportunity to review and make copies of them. Id. at 2.

6

According to plaintiff, defendant “only amends in words, that there’s no disciplinary history that

7

exist[s] . . . .” Id. Defendant has not submitted a reply responding to those contentions.

8
9

As to defendant’s shooting range score records and shooting training, plaintiff contends
that defendant has not produced “what [if any] prior history or Training with firearms; his

10

shooting score or ability; any prior [if any] Military Firearm Training; or any documentation

11

describing his shooting ability or proficiency other than the fact that he, he did in fact, attend the

12

CDC Shooting Range quite frequent[ly].” Id. However, defendant’s amended response appears

13

to have included five pages of records that indicate the mandatory training that defendant

14

received between December 22, 2008 and May 10, 2012. See id. at 6-10 (indicating defendant

15

completed courses in “Use of Force,” “Less than Lethal Weapons,” “Firearms/Shooting Policy,”

16

and “Range-Quarterly”).

17

I.

18

APPLICABLE LAW
Rule 26(e)(1)(B) provides that a party must supplement responses to requests for

19

production if ordered by the court. Here, the court ordered defendant to supplement his responses

20

to plaintiff’s requests for production. See ECF Nos. 33, 38; see also ECF No. 39 (claiming

21

compliance “with the Court’s Orders by serving Plaintiff with Amended Responses to Request for

22

Production of Documents”).

23
24

Under Rule 37(c)(1), a party that fails to provide the information “required by Rule 26(a)
or (e) . . . is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a

25
1

26
27
28

For ease of reference, all citations to court documents are to the pagination assigned via
the court’s electronic filing system.
2

Plaintiff submitted to the court the defendant’s amended response—apparently in its
entirety. See id. at 4
2

1

hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” The burden of

2

showing that the failure to disclose was substantially justified or harmless lies with the party

3

facing sanctions. R & R Sails, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania, 673 F.3d 1240, 1246 (9th

4

Cir. 2012).

5

Additionally, Rule 37(c)(1) provides that the court, “on motion and after giving an

6

opportunity to be heard,” may impose other appropriate sanctions. District courts have great

7

discretion in deciding whether to impose sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1). See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v.

8

Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A]lthough we review every

9

discovery sanction for an abuse of discretion, we give particularly wide latitude to the district

10

court’s discretion to issue sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1)”).

11

II.

12

ANALYSIS
The absence of any response to the plaintiff’s specific allegations that defendant has not

13

complied with the court’s discovery order is troubling. If plaintiff’s “Response” accurately

14

describes defendant’s amended responses, defendant appears to have not complied with the order.

15

First, defendant’s previous assertions—for example, that plaintiff’s request was overbroad and

16

sought confidential material that could pose a threat to institutional safety if revealed—suggests

17

that defendant likely has more documents on the CDC’s Zone-1 Policy than the half-page that he

18

submitted to plaintiff. See ECF No. 33 at 2 (overruling defendant’s objection that the discovery

19

request for those documents was vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and sought confidential material

20

that could pose a threat to institutional safety). If defendant maintains that the half-page is the

21

only responsive document that exists, he must submit a signed verification of that fact, and the

22

verification must be signed by an individual having personal knowledge of the fact(s).

23

Further, plaintiff’s assertion that he has not been provided copies of documents from his

24

central file and any disciplinary reports warrants a verified response. Notwithstanding the court’s

25

order to produce the documents, plaintiff claims he has neither been provided those documents

26

nor given the opportunity to review and copy redacted versions of them—an alternative that the

27

court presented in the discovery order. If those representations are true, the defense has complied

28

with the order.
3

1

Plaintiff also requested “shooting range records and all related shooting training

2

documents.” ECF No. 33 at 3. Defendant’s amended response appears to comply with the

3

request for “shooting training documents,” but not the request for “shooting range records.”

4

Thus, if plaintiff’s allegations are correct, defendant has not fully complied with the

5

court’s discovery order. Accordingly, defendant is ordered to respond to plaintiff’s allegations

6

(see ECF No. 40) within seven days of the filing of this order.

7

If the court determines that the order was violated, the court may impose sanctions for

8

defendant’s noncompliance under Rule 37(b)(2), absent a showing by defendant that either he did

9

comply with the discovery order or any failure to comply was both inadvertent and harmless.

10

Defendant’s response shall address whether any sanction under Rule 37(b)(2) is appropriate.

11

III.

12

ORDER
Defendant is hereby ordered to respond to plaintiff’s allegation that defendant has not

13

complied with the court’s discovery order. If defendant concedes that he did not comply with the

14

order, he must (1) amend his responses to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents and (2)

15

explain to the court why sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2). If defendant

16

maintains that he did comply with the discovery order because all responsive documents have

17

been produced, he must submit a verified response that clearly so states and the verification shall

18

be by an individual having personal knowledge of that fact.

19

DATED: January 15, 2015.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4