Johnson v. Sandy et al

Filing 86

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/21/14 ordering that within 15 days from the date of this order defendants Cruzen, Lavignino, Lavergne and Cobian shall answer interrogatory number 5 of plaintiff's first set of interrogatories in the m anner required by the magistrate judge and file their answers with the court. Any defendant whose answer is in the affirmative shall, with the filing of the answer, inform the court in writing how many excessive force 602 complaints against said defendant date from 5 years prior to June 2012 through the present. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH JOHNSON,

12

No. 2:12-cv-2922 JAM AC P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

E. SANDY, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

On September 29, 2014, defendants filed a request for reconsideration in part of the

18

magistrate judge’s order filed September 15, 2014. Defendants seek reconsideration of that part

19

of the order requiring defendants to produce documents responsive to the following two requests

20

from plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Set One, RFP No. 12: Any and all formal and informal written
complaints (including but not limited to CDCR 602 forms) against
any defendants, alleging excessive use of force that occurred prior
to (June 22, 2012) to the present (including all written responses,
appeals, reports, investigations, and/or correspondence regarding
the complaints).
Set One, RFP No. 36: Any and all grievances, complaints, or other
documents received by defendants, their agents or supervisors at
CSP-Solano concerning mistreatment of inmates by defendants: E.
Sandy, J. Cruzen, K. Lavagnino, D. Lavergne, E. Cobain, and any
memoranda, investigative files, or other documents created in
response to such documents since June 22, 2012 to the present.
Order filed September 15, 2014 (ECF No. 61) (quoting ECF No. 56-4 at 8-9, 19-20). This
1

1

request for production of documents was propounded on defendants Cobian, Cruzen, Lavagnino

2

and Lavergne only. Id. at 19 n.8. Defendants also seek reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s

3

order requiring defendants Cruzen, Lavagnino, Lavergne and Cobian to answer the following

4

interrogatory:

5

Set One, INT No. 5: During your employment as a (CDC) officer
have you ever had any 602 complaints filed against you. If so
explain (A) have you ever been accused of excessive force[?]”

6
7

Id. at 20-21 (quoting ECF No. 56-4 at 36). The only answer to this interrogatory required by the

8

magistrate judge is “whether and on how many occasions they have been accused of excessive

9

force in a 602 complaint by inmate(s) other than plaintiff.” Id. at 21.

10

Defendants contend that “potentially responsive documents and information” ordered

11

produced by the magistrate judge is protected by the official-information privilege. With respect

12

to the interrogatory answer required by the magistrate judge, the request for reconsideration is

13

denied. Defendants Cruzen, Lavignino, Lavergne and Cobian will be required to answer this

14

interrogatory and file their answers with the court within fifteen days. Any defendant whose

15

answer is in the affirmative shall, with the filing of the answer, inform the court in writing how

16

many excessive force 602 complaints against said defendant date from five years prior to June

17

2012 through the present. Resolution of the remainder of defendants’ request for reconsideration

18

is deferred pending filing of the required answers to this interrogatory.

19

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fifteen days from

20

the date of this order defendants Cruzen, Lavignino, Lavergne and Cobian shall answer

21

interrogatory number 5 of plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories in the manner required by the

22

magistrate judge and file their answers with the court. Any defendant whose answer is in the

23

affirmative shall, with the filing of the answer, inform the court in writing how many excessive

24

force 602 complaints against said defendant date from five years prior to June 2012 through the

25

present.

26

DATED: November 21, 2014

27
28

/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
2