Johnson v. De La Trinidad et al

Filing 65

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (ECF No. 39 , 41 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 07/13/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

SEDRIC JOHNSON,

Case No.: 17cv731-WHQ-MDD
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS
MOTIONS TO COMPEL

13

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER A. de
la TRINIDAD, et al.,

[ECF Nos. 39, 41]

14

Defendants.

15
16

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel responses to

17

Plaintiff’s Request for Production of certain service history reports and

18

answers to Plaintiff’s second set of Interrogatories numbered 5 through 16.

19

(ECF Nos. 39, 41).

20
21

LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain

22

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

23

defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

24

26(b)(1). “Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in

25

evidence to be discoverable.” Id. District courts have broad discretion to

26

limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or

27

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more
1
17cv731-WHQ-MDD

1
2

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
A party may request the production of any document within the scope of

3

Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response

4

must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as

5

requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.” Rule

6

34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce responsive

7

information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must be

8

completed no later than the time specified in the request or another

9

reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state

10

whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that

11

objection. Rule 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the

12

part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. The responding

13

party is responsible for all items in “the responding party’s possession,

14

custody, or control.” Rule 34(a)(1). In the context of prisoner litigation,

15

requests for evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts is limited to grievances

16

related to the allegation sin the lawsuit. See Robinson v. Adams, Case No.

17

1:08-cv-01380-A WI-SMS PC, 2011 WL 2118753, *17 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2011)

18

(inmate only entitled to complaints that alleged the use of excessive force as

19

claimed in complaint).

20

Rule 33, Fed. R. Civ. P., governs interrogatory practice. Of relevance

21

here, Rule 33(a)(1) provides that “a party may serve on any other party no

22

more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” Fed.

23

R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be

24

inquired of under Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party

25

must answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate objection(s) with

26

specificity or, to the extent the interrogatory is not objected to, by

27

“answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under oath.” Rule 33(b).
2
17cv731-WHQ-MDD

DISCUSSION

1
2

1. RFP No. 14

3

Plaintiff’s RFP No. 14 requests that Defendants A. de la Trinidad,

4

Flores, and Soto produce “for inspection and copying … the service history

5

report for each individual named in the complaint.” (ECF No. 39 at 1).

6

Plaintiff supports his request by stating that the information is relevant, and

7

supports his contention with case law from New York, Kansas, and

8

Pennsylvania. (Id. at 2).

9

Defendants objected to RFP No. 14 stating that it was vague and

10

ambiguous, overbroad, violated privacy rights, and by citing relevancy,

11

confidentiality, and proportionality concerns. (ECF No. 52 at 2). Further,

12

Defendants argue that the service reports are protected by the official

13

information privilege. (Id.). Without waiving their objections, Defendants

14

conducted a search for substantiated grievances against Defendants relating

15

to the claims presented in his case, and for all three Defendants, found that

16

none exist. (Id.).

17

Defendants indicate that they have conducted a search for relevant

18

substantiated grievance complaints related to claims of excessive force and

19

failure to protect an inmate from excessive force, the issues at hand in

20

Plaintiff’s lawsuit, and no records were produced. The Court is satisfied with

21

Defendants’ response and no further production is required. Defendants’

22

objection for relevance is SUSTAINED.

23

2. Interrogatory Nos. 5-16

24

Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant De La Trinidad to

25

provide complete answers to his second set of interrogatories, specifically

26

interrogatories 5 through 16. (ECF No. 41). Plaintiff states that Defendants

27

told Plaintiff that he had “exceeded the number of interrogatories allowed by
3
17cv731-WHQ-MDD

1

… Local Rule 33.1 [limiting interrogatories to 25 and requiring leave of court

2

to serve additional interrogatories over the limit].” (Id. at 4). Defendants

3

provide copies of their responses to the first and second set of interrogatories

4

in support of their argument that Plaintiff has exceeded twenty-five

5

interrogatories. (ECF Nos. 54-3, 54-4). The Court agrees that Plaintiff has

6

served and received responses on his first twenty-five interrogatories and has

7

not sought leave to serve additional interrogatories. Defendants’ objection is

8

SUSTAINED.
CONCLUSION

9
10

As provided above, Defendants’ objection to RFP No. 14 and

11

Interrogatory Nos. 5-16 are SUSTAINED. Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel

12

further responses are DENIED.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 13, 2018

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
4
17cv731-WHQ-MDD