Dearwester v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/06/16 ordering defendant's motion to compel 39 is granted. Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall respond to defendant's interrogatories, Set One, and defendant's request for production of documents, set one if he has not done so already. Plaintiff's motion to compel 42 is denied. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANK LEE DEARWESTER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-2064 MCE KJN P (TEMP)

v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief

18
19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to compel and

20

plaintiff’s motion to compel. Below, the court will address each motion in turn.
BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff is proceeding on his original complaint against defendant County of Sacramento.

22
23

Therein plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to a Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department policy, all

24

incoming inmate mail, with the exception of legal mail and other approved correspondence, is

25

limited to postcards no larger than six inches by four and one-half inches. Plaintiff claims that the

26

policy, a copy of which is attached to plaintiff’s complaint, violates his rights under the First

27

Amendment. (Compl. at 3 & Attachs.)

28

/////

1
2

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

3

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to
the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative
access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be
admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

4
5
6
7
8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).

9

With respect to interrogatories, a party may propound interrogatories that “relate to any

10

matter that may be inquired into under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

33(a)(2). With respect to requests for production, a party may propound requests for production

12

of documents that are “within the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ.

13

P. 34(a).

14

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may

15

move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

16

37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to “an evasive or

17

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have

18

‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule

19

of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting

20

Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)).

21
22

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendant County of Sacramento has moved to compel plaintiff’s responses to

23

defendant’s Interrogatories, Set One, and defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set

24

One. According to defense counsel, the defendant served plaintiff with these discovery requests

25

on September 30, 2015, making plaintiff’s responses due by November 13, 2015. Plaintiff has

26

not responded to any of the discovery requests. Defense counsel notes that on December 2, 2015,

27

defense counsel made a good-faith effort to confer with plaintiff in writing and obtain his

28

responses to no avail. (Def.’s Mot. to Compel at 1-3, Debow Decl. Exs. A & B.)
2

1

In opposition to the pending motion to compel, plaintiff contends that he had not received

2

defendant’s interrogatories or requests for production of documents until the defendant filed the

3

pending motion to compel on December 17, 2015. Plaintiff requests an additional forty-five (45)

4

to sixty (60) days to respond to defendant’s discovery requests. (Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to

5

Compel at 1.)

6

Under the circumstances of this case, the court grants defendant’s motion to compel. In

7

addition, if plaintiff has not already responded to defendant’s discovery requests, the court will

8

grant him a reasonable extension of time to respond to defendant’s interrogatories and requests

9

for production of documents. Plaintiff is advised that with respect to defendant’s interrogatories,

10

plaintiff must answer each interrogatory “separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R.

11

Civ. P. 33(b)(3). With respect to defendant’s request for production of documents, if plaintiff has

12

any relevant documents or materials in his possession or control, he must produce them in

13

response to defendant’s discovery requests. If plaintiff is not in possession or control of relevant

14

materials, he must state under oath that the requested documents do not exist or are not in his

15

possession or control. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Plaintiff is cautioned that “[t]he discovery

16

process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith obligation.” Asea v. Southern Pacific

17

Transportation Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1247 (9th Cir. 1981).

18

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

19

The court now turns to plaintiff’s motion to compel. Plaintiff has moved to compel

20

defendant County of Sacramento to provide a further response to his Interrogatory No. 4.

21

According to plaintiff, he served the defendant with interrogatories on September 30, 2015,

22

making the defendant’s responses due by November 13, 2015. The parties do not dispute that the

23

defendant timely served plaintiff with responses to the interrogatories. Plaintiff, however, was

24

dissatisfied with defendant’s response to Interrogatory Number 4 and made a good-faith effort to

25

confer with the defendant in writing. Although the defendant served plaintiff with a supplemental

26

response to Interrogatory Number 4, plaintiff believes defendant’s response is still not adequate

27

and moves to compel a further response. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel at 2-3.)

28

/////
3

1

In opposition to the pending motion to compel, defense counsel contends that the court

2

should deny plaintiff’s motion to compel because it is untimely. Moreover, counsel contends that

3

the court should not compel the defendant to provide a further response to plaintiff’s

4

Interrogatory No. 4 because it is made up of at least four discrete interrogatories, and it is not

5

clear which subpart plaintiff refers to his motion to compel. In addition, plaintiff’s request for

6

names, addresses, booking photographs for anyone held in defendant’s custody in any capacity in

7

the Sacramento County Main Jail or any of defendant’s other facilities where inmates are held in

8

any capacity is overbroad and would be so burdensome as to constitute harassment. (Def.’s

9

Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel at 2-6.)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

As an initial matter, plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 4 states:
State the name, ADDRESS at the time of booking into
DEFENDANT’S custody, any available forwarding
ADDRESS(es), IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, booking
photograph(s) of all PERSONS in DEFENDANT’S custody in any
capacity at its Sacramento County Main Jail Facility or any other of
DEFENDANT’S facilities where inmates are held in any capacity
during INCIDENT.
State the name, ADDRESS(es), and relationship to any inmate
above, any PERSON who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events
occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; any
PERSON who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT;
any PERSON who heard any statements made about the
INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and who YOU or
ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of
the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of
Civil Procedure section 2034).
Have YOU or ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF
interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for
each individual state:
(a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual
interviewed;
(b) The date of the interview; and
(c) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON
who conducted the interview.
Have YOU or ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained
a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the
INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state:
(a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual
4

1

from whom the statement was obtained;

2

(b) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual
who obtained the statement;

3
(c) The date the statement was obtained; and
4
5
6
7

(d) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON
who has the statement or a copy.
(Defs. Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, Debow Decl. Ex. A.)
Defendant County of Sacramento objected to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it is

8

overbroad, violates third parties’ right to privacy, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the

9

discovery of admissible evidence because plaintiff is not permitted to make claims on behalf of

10

other inmates or persons who had been detained at the jail. Without waiving these objections and

11

others, in response to plaintiff’s inquiry about identification of witnesses, the defendant provided

12

plaintiff with the names and badge numbers of two lieutenants and three deputies who could be

13

contacted via defense counsel. In response to plaintiff’s inquiry about individuals interviewed

14

and whether any statements were taken from witnesses, defendant informed plaintiff that no

15

individuals had been interviewed. (Defs. Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, Debow Decl. Ex. A.)

16

Under the circumstances of this case, the court denies plaintiff’s motion to compel. First,

17

as defense counsel argues, plaintiff’s motion is untimely. According to this court’s discovery and

18

scheduling order, the parties needed to file any motion to compel on or before December 11,

19

2015. (ECF No. 33) Plaintiff signed his motion to compel on January 4, 2016, and the court did

20

not receive his motion for filing until January 8, 2016. Moreover, even if the court excused

21

plaintiff’s failure to file his motion to compel on time, plaintiff’s Interrogatory Number 4 is

22

grossly overbroad, and the “burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

23

benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Plaintiff has not satisfactorily explained how or why the

24

information he seeks is relevant to his sole claim for municipal liability based on the defendant’s

25

alleged change to the incoming inmate mail policy. As this court previously advised plaintiff, he

26

may not assert legal rights on behalf of third parties, including other inmates. (ECF No. 32 at 3.)

27

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, the court will not require the defendant to provide

28

any further response to plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 4.
5

1

CONCLUSION

2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall respond to defendant’s

5

Interrogatories, Set One, and defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One if he has

6

not done so already; and

7
8

Defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 39) is granted;

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 42) is denied.
Dated: April 6, 2016

9
10
11
dear2064.mtc

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6