(PC) Hill v. Kernan et al
Filing
60
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 9/10/2020 GRANTING IN PART 53 Motion to Compel. Within 20 days of the date of this order, defendant shall serve on plaintiff a response to the following request for production of documents: Any d ocuments/records related to the number of family visits approved by defendant Ayala for EOP participants housed on A Facility from 1/1/2016 through the date plaintiff served his third request for production of documents. If defendant has responsive documents that contain the private or privileged information of other inmates or their families, he may redact those documents before providing them to plaintiff. (Tupolo, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KENNETH HILL,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:19-cv-0184 TLN DB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Y. AYALA,
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff alleges that defendant
18
discriminated against him based on plaintiff’s participation in a mental health program when he
19
sought family visits and a job. Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to
20
respond to a request for production of documents. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s
21
motion will be granted in part.
22
23
BACKGROUND
This case is proceeding on plaintiff’s claims in his second amended complaint against
24
defendant Y. Ayala. Plaintiff alleges that in 2017, he was transferred to California State Prison –
25
Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”) so that he could participate in a mental health program, the Enhanced
26
Outpatient Program (“EOP”). In October 2017, plaintiff requested a family visit. He alleges that
27
defendant Ayala, a correctional counselor at CSP-Sac, denied that request based on plaintiff’s
28
participation in the EOP program. He further alleges that Ayala denied plaintiff the right to apply
1
1
for a certain prison job, again based on his EOP participation. On screening, this court found
2
plaintiff stated cognizable claims against Ayala for discrimination under the Americans with
3
Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act.
4
5
6
MOTION TO COMPEL
I. Legal Standards
Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may
7
move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8
37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or
9
incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have
10
‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule
11
of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting
12
Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)).
13
The party moving to compel bears the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery
14
requests are the subject of the motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are disputed, (3) why
15
the party believes the response is deficient, (4) why any objections are not justified, and (5) why
16
the information sought through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. McCoy v.
17
Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv-1808-MJS (PC), 2016 WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016); Ellis v.
18
Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-5646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008).
19
The reach of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs requests for
20
production, “extends to all relevant documents, tangible things, and entry upon designated land or
21
other property.” Clark v. Vega Wholesale Inc., 181 F.R.D. 470, 472-73 (D. Nev. 1998) (citing
22
8A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2206, at 381).
23
The purpose of discovery is to “remove surprise from trial preparation so the parties can
24
obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute.” United States v. Chapman
25
University, 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). Rule 26(b)(1)
26
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers guidance on the scope of discovery permitted:
27
28
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
information that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of
2
1
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.
2
3
4
5
“Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly.” Garneau v. City of
6
Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the
7
burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).
8
Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be
9
prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v.
10
Ochoa, No. 07cv200 JM (PCL), 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (internal
11
citation omitted).
12
II. Analysis
13
14
Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to the following request from his third request for
production of documents:
15
REQUEST NO. 1:
16
Any and All documents/records related to the number of Family
Visits Approved and Scheduled for EOP patients housed on AFacility from 1-1-16 to this date.
17
18
Defendant Ayala submitted the following response:
19
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:
20
Defendant objects to this request because it is: (1) vague and
ambiguous; (2) compound; (3) not relevant to any claim or defense
in this lawsuit; (4) not calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence; (5) burdensome; (6) harassing; (7) seeks
confidential information; (8) seeks production of documents that, if
produced, would create a hazard to the security and safety of the
institution; (9) seeks production of documents that are considered by
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to be
confidential; (10) seeks information regarding other inmates, which
are privileged under state law; (11) seeks production of documents
that are protected by Defendants’ and third-party inmates’ privacy
rights and the official-information privilege; (12) seeks production
of documents that Plaintiff is not permitted to possess under
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, sections 3450(d),
3084.9(i)(3)(B)(1), and 3321(a)(1)-(2); and (13) seeks production of
documents that are protected by California Government Code section
6254(f) and California Evidence Code sections 1040-1043.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
Without waiving objections and subject to them, Defendant
responds: Responsive documents are referenced in the attached
privilege log.
2
3
The privilege log references one responsive document. Defendant describes it as an Excel
4
spreadsheet that identifies inmates approved for family visits in Facility A during the relevant
5
time period. Defendant argues that the spreadsheet contains confidential information. Defendant
6
further argues that it is not relevant to plaintiff’s claims because: (1) it does not identify which
7
inmates are participants in the EOP program, and (2) it does not show who was responsible for
8
granting the inmates family visits.
9
This court agrees with plaintiff that defendant’s confidentiality concerns could be
10
addressed by redacting relevant responsive documents. That said, this court finds defendant’s
11
relevancy objections valid. Plaintiff claims defendant Ayala discriminated against plaintiff based
12
on plaintiff’s EOP status. Plaintiff’s request seeks information about all EOP inmates’ approved
13
requests for family visits, regardless of whether they were considered by defendant.
14
While plaintiff argues that he requires the information to show a disparity between family
15
visits approved for EOP participants and those approved for the general population, this is not a
16
class action lawsuit challenging the prison’s denial of the rights of all EOP participants. Rather,
17
this case is limited to the issue of whether one person, defendant Ayala, discriminated against one
18
person, plaintiff, based on his EOP status.
19
This court does find that plaintiff’s request can be limited to seek only information that
20
could be potentially relevant to his claims. This court will require defendant to respond to the
21
following, limited request for production of documents: Any documents/records related to the
22
number of family visits approved by defendant Ayala for EOP participants housed on A-Facility
23
from January 1, 2016 through the date plaintiff served his third request for production of
24
documents.
25
Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
26
1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 53) is granted in part;
27
2. Within twenty days of the date of this order, defendant shall serve on plaintiff a
28
response to the following request for production of documents: Any documents/records related to
4
1
the number of family visits approved by defendant Ayala for EOP participants housed on A-
2
Facility from January 1, 2016 through the date plaintiff served his third request for production of
3
documents. If defendant has responsive documents that contain the private or privileged
4
information of other inmates or their families, he may redact those documents before providing
5
them to plaintiff.
6
Dated: September 10, 2020
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DLB:9
DB/prisoner-civil rights/hill0184.mtc
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?