(PC) James v. State of California et al

Filing 94

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 3/7/2025 DENYING plaintiff's 82 motion to modify for law library access and "extraction", 86 motion to show cause, 88 motion to correct the case name, 89 motion to compel, and VACATING the court's 20 findings and recommendations. (Deputy Clerk KLY)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD EUGENE JAMES,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 2:21-cv-0713-JDP (P)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff has four motions pending: a motion for court-ordered law library access and

19

“extraction,” ECF No. 82; a motion to show cause, ECF No. 86; a motion to change the name of

20

the case, ECF No. 88; and a motion to compel, ECF No. 89. Defendants oppose the motion to

21

compel. ECF No. 90. Plaintiff’s motions are denied.

22

Motion for Court-Ordered Law Library Access and for Extraction

23

Plaintiff first moves this court to order his current jail to give him access to the law

24

library. ECF No. 82. He contends that he received discovery on flash drives that he cannot

25

access without using the law library, and that the jail is impeding his ability to access the library.

26

Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff may show this order to the appropriate officials and offer it as verification that

27

he is litigating this action pro se. I decline, however, to interfere with the operations of the

28
1

1

Sacramento County Jail directly and to order that he either be provided a specific period of access

2

to the library or be given any particular services. If his access continues to be inadequate after

3

presenting this order as proof that he is litigating pro se, he may notify the court.

4

In the same motion, plaintiff asks for an “extraction order,” stating he has been unlawfully

5

held by Sacramento County, and that the sheriff has refused to transport him to federal court. Id.

6

at 2-3. Plaintiff has not been ordered to appear before the court, and he cites no law to support his

7

request. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

8

Motion to Show Cause

9

Plaintiff moves this court to order non-parties Deputy Joseph Caples, the law library

10

deputy; Ruby, a law librarian; and Lieutenant Mulligan to answer for allegedly missing flash

11

drives. ECF No. 86. According to plaintiff, he was presented with legal mail communicating that

12

one flash drive had been sent to him, and that the flash drive was in Caples’s possession. Id. at 1.

13

Plaintiff later filed a grievance, complaining that information had been deleted from that flash

14

drive. Id. at 1-2. In response, Caples stated that he had six flash drives containing digital

15

discovery for plaintiff’s civil suit. Id. at 2. However, when plaintiff reviewed the flash drives,

16

only one contained digital discovery for his civil case, and the remaining five contained digital

17

discovery for his criminal cases. Id. Plaintiff asks this court to order these non-parties to “show

18

cause” and to explain why Caples stated that the six flash drives contained his civil discovery

19

when they did not. Id. I will deny plaintiff’s motion, since this court cannot issue an order

20

against non-parties. See Driver v. Kern Cnty. Superior Ct., No. 2:20-cv-1665-TLN-KJN, 2023

21

WL 3340887, at *27 (E.D. Cal. May 10, 2023) (denying plaintiff’s motion to show cause because

22

it was directed to non-parties).

23

Motion to Change the Case Name

24

Plaintiff moves this court to change the case name to reflect the original parties to the suit

25

that have since been dismissed. ECF No. 88. I will deny plaintiff’s motion as unnecessary. This

26

case’s name on the court’s internal operating system remains James v. State of California, et al.,

27

and no change needs to be made.

28
2

1

Motion to Compel

2

A.

3

Plaintiff moved to compel defendant to provide additional information in his original

4

interrogatory responses. ECF No. 71. I partially granted the motion, ECF No. 81, as to the

5

following interrogatories: In interrogatory eleven, plaintiff asked defendant to provide the name,

6

address, and badge number or otherwise identify any persons who know facts relevant to the

7

“conduct” described in the interrogatories. Id. at 3. In interrogatory fourteen, plaintiff asked for

8

the full name of the individual who extradited him from Eisenhower airport, which this court

9

construed as asking for defendant’s full name. Id. at 4. Interrogatory fifteen partially asked with

10

which law enforcement personnel or agencies defendant communicated while in Wichita, Kansas.

11

Id. Interrogatory twenty-one asked what “primary role” detective Janine LeRose played in the

12

extradition process. Id. at 5.

13

Background

Defendant complied with my order and provided plaintiff with supplemental responses to

14

the interrogatories. ECF No. 89 at 8-11. To interrogatory eleven, defendant identified

15

“Sacramento Police Department Sergeant Terrance Mercadal, Badge Number 3090,” as a person

16

who could know facts relevant to the current action. Id. at 9. Defendant provided his full name

17

in response to interrogatory fourteen. Id. To interrogatory fifteen, defendant stated that “[t]here

18

was communication with Butler County Sheriff’s Department and Butler County Jail to arrange

19

the Plaintiff’s transportation to Dwight Eisenhower National Airport.” Id. at 10. In interrogatory

20

twenty-one, defendant answered that “Detective Janine LeRose was assigned to the

21

Warrants/Missing Person unit for the Sacramento Police Department. Prior to Detective

22

LeRose’s retirement in 2020, LeRose’s job duties included the extradition of prisoners from other

23

states, and obtaining Governor’s Warrants for prisoners refusing to be extradited.” Id. at 11.

24

Plaintiff now moves this court to compel additional responses to these interrogatories.

25

ECF No. 89. As for interrogatory eleven, plaintiff contends that defendant’s answer was

26

incomplete because he did not provide an address for Mercadal, did not state what shift Mercadal

27

worked, and did not explain how plaintiff could locate Mercadal. Id. at 2. Plaintiff challenges

28

defendant’s response to interrogatory fourteen, arguing that defendant still has not provided the
3

1

full name of the person whom defendant extradited. Id. As for interrogatory fifteen, plaintiff

2

argues that defendant failed to state whether he visited any law enforcement agencies, and failed

3

to identify the name of each agency and individual with whom he spoke, including those

4

individuals’ names and badge numbers. Id. at 3. Finally, plaintiff contends that defendant’s

5

answer to interrogatory twenty-one was insufficient because plaintiff did not ask what LeRose’s

6

job description was, but instead asked what her primary role was in extraditing plaintiff. Id.

7

Plaintiff moves this court to issue sanctions against defendant and to find defendant in contempt

8

of court. Id. at 4-5.

9

Defendant opposes plaintiff’s motion to compel. ECF No. 90. He argues that plaintiff

10

failed to meet and confer regarding the allegedly insufficient responses, in violation of federal

11

rules. Id. at 4-5. He also contends that his answers sufficiently complied with this court’s order

12

to compel. Id. at 2-4. Regarding interrogatory eleven, defendant argues that his supplemental

13

response was complete despite not including Mercadal’s address, because Mercadal’s address is

14

confidential under California law. Id. at 2. He also argues that even if Mercadal’s address was

15

not protected, he does not know Mercadal’s address, and Mercadal is a City of Sacramento

16

employee, meaning that Mercadal is equally represented by the Sacramento City Attorney’s

17

Office, an address plaintiff is familiar with due to this litigation. Id. To interrogatories fourteen

18

and fifteen, defendant contends that his answers fully complied with this court’s order. Id. at 3-4.

19

He also argues his response to interrogatory twenty-one complied with this court’s order, and that

20

to the extent plaintiff requested information regarding LeRose’s personal involvement in

21

plaintiff’s extradition, he did not have personal knowledge of that information. Id. at 4.

22

B.

Analysis

23

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, “[t]he party to whom [a request for production]

24

is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

25

34(b)(2)(A). The responding party may state an objection to any request but must offer a specific

26

rationale for doing so. In responding to a request to produce documents, the responding party

27

must affirmatively state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of the

28

proffered objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C).
4

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, “a party seeking discovery may move for an

1
2

order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).

3

The party seeking to compel discovery has the initial burden of establishing that its requests are

4

relevant, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), but “[t]he party who resists discovery has the burden to

5

show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and

6

supporting its objections.” See Blemaster v. Sabo, No. 2:16-CV-04557 JWS, 2017 WL 4843241,

7

at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2017) (quoting DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal.

8

2002)).

9

As an initial matter, defendant is correct that parties generally must meet and confer

10

before bringing discovery disputes before the court. While plaintiff has apparently failed to meet

11

and confer regarding this dispute, I will not deny the motion to compel for that reason, and I

12

encourage plaintiff to confer with defendant before filing any future motions of this nature.

13

That being said, I deny plaintiff’s motion to compel because defendant has adequately

14

supplemented his interrogatory responses. Defendant’s response to plaintiff’s interrogatory

15

number eleven sufficiently provides the name, address, and badge number of any person with

16

facts relevant to the “conduct” at issue in the current suit. Defendant explained that he does not

17

have personal knowledge of Mercado’s address, and that plaintiff has the ability to find Mercado

18

via the Sacramento Attorney General’s Office—an office with which plaintiff is familiar at this

19

point in the litigation.

20

Additionally, defendant’s answers to interrogatories fourteen and fifteen sufficiently

21

comply with this court’s prior order. As for interrogatory fourteen, I previously directed

22

defendant to answer this interrogatory by providing plaintiff with defendant’s full name. See ECF

23

No. 81 at 4. Defendant complied with my prior instruction. See ECF No. 89 at 9. I also directed

24

defendant to state what law enforcement personnel or agencies defendant communicated with

25

while in Wichita, Kansas, and defendant’s supplemental response complies with that order. See

26

ECF No. 81 at 4; ECF No. 89 at 10. Finally, defendant’s response to interrogatory twenty-one

27

sufficiently complies with my prior order. Defendant listed LaRose’s role in the extradition

28

process generally, but he states that he has no personal knowledge of LaRose’s personal
5

1

involvement in extraditing plaintiff. ECF No. 89 at 11. Defendant sufficiently responded to

2

plaintiff’s interrogatories, and plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff’s request for

3

sanctions and to hold defendant in contempt are similarly denied.

4

Conclusion

5

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

6

1.

7

Plaintiff’s motion to modify for law library access and “extraction,” ECF No. 82,

is DENIED.

8

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to show cause, ECF No. 86, is DENIED.

9

3.

Plaintiff’s motion to correct the case name, ECF No. 88, is DENIED.

10

4.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 89, is DENIED.

11

5.

The court’s June 13, 2022 findings and recommendations, ECF No. 20, are

12

vacated.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
Dated:

March 7, 2025

16

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6