Grizzle v. San Diego, County of et al

Filing 143

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 137 Defendants' Motion to Compel further Responses to Written Discovery. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: (1) The MTC as to RFA Nos. 1-5 is DENIED AS MOOT; (2) The MTC as to Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 14 , 17, 20, and 23 is DENIED; (3) The MTC as to Interrogatory No. 4 and 6 is GRANTED; (4) The MTC as to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff must supplement his responses no later than 8/24/2021; (5) The MTC as to RFP Nos. 1-48 is GRANTED. Plaintiff must serve amended responses no later than 8/24/2021; (6) Defendants' request for reasonable expenses incurred in bringing this MTC, comprising of attorney's fees in the amount of $1,442.10, is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro on 8/10/2021. (tcf)

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 143 Filed 08/10/21 PageID.1074 Page 1 of 12

1

2
3
4

5
6
7

8

· UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ELLIOT SCOTT GRIZZLE,

12

Case No.: 17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN
DISCOVERY

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

[Doc. 137]

17
18

I.

INTRODUCTION

19

On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff Elliot Scott Grizzle ("Plaintiff'), through his

20

counsel, filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

21

("Section 1983"). (Doc. 110.) Plaintiff asserts claims against the County of San Diego

22

("County"), Sheriff William Gore ("Sheriff Gore"), Lieutenant Lena Lovelace

23

("Lieutenant Lovelace"), and Aaron Boorman ("Sergeant Boorman") (collectively

24

"Defendants"). 1 (Id.)

25

On April 14, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel ("MTC") further responses

26

to written discovery, wherein they seek to have their Requests for Admission ("RFA"), Set

27
28

1

On August 17, 2020, the Court dismissed all causes of action against Defendant Eric
Froistad without prejudice. (See Doc. 120 at 9.)
1
17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 143 Filed 08/10/21 PageID.1075 Page 2 of 12

1 One, be deemed admitted and seek to compel further responses to their Interrogatories, Set
2

One, and Requests for Production ("RFP"), Set One. In addition, Defendants request that

3

the Court award reasonable expenses in the amount of$1,442.10 for recovery of attorney's

4

fees .incurred in bringing this motion. (Doc. 13 7-1 at 2.) Plaintiff filed an Opposition to

5 the MTC ("Opposition") on April 28, 2021. (Doc. 139.) Defendants filed a Reply on May
6
7

5, 2021. (Doc. 140.)
For the reasons outlined below, Defendants' MTC is GRANTED IN PART and

8

DENIEDINPART.

9

II.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

10

A.

11

The claims in this case are based on Plaintiffs placement in Administrative

12

Segregation ("Ad-Seg") between August 3, 2016 through August 27, 2017 at the San Diego

13

Central Jail ("SDCJ") while he was a pretrial detainee. (Doc. 110.) This case had a lengthy

14

initial pleading stage which ultimately concluded after the Court issued a ruling on

15

Defendants'. motion to dismiss and strike portions of the TAC. (Docs. 111, 116, 120.) The

16

TAC's surviving causes of action are as follows: the first cause of action alleges Fourteenth

17

Amendment due process violations against the County and Lieutenant Lovelace as to

18

Plaintiffs Ad-Seg placement while housed at SDCJ; the second, third, and fourth causes

.19

of action allege Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment violations against all Defendants with

20

regard to sleep deprivation, prevention from exercising and being forced to choose between

21

sleep and exercise. (Doc. 110 at ,r,r 43-76; see also Docs. 116, 120.) Although the Court

22

dismissed Plaintiffs requests for injunctive and declaratory relief, the TAC seeks recovery

23

of compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and fees. (Doc. 110 at 22; see also Docs.

24

116, 120.)

Surviving Causes of Action in TAC

25

B.

26

The instant MTC is based on Plaintiffs alleged failure to provide complete

27

responses to Defendants' first set of written discovery requests originally served on

28

November 24, 2020, including RF As, Interrogatories, and RFPs. (Docs. 137-1 at 3; Doc.

Instant Motion

2
l 7-cv-00813-JLS-RBM

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 143 Filed 08/10/21 PageID.1076 Page 3 of 12

1

137-2, Defs.' Ex. A at 9, Defs.' Ex.Eat 40, Defs.' Ex. I at 101.) After extensive meet and

2

confer efforts via telephone and email, three sets of supplemental responses served by

3

Plaintiff,2 and an informal telephonic discovery conference with the undersigned, 3

4

Defendants filed the instant motion on April 14, 2021 at 3:57pm. (Doc. 137.) Hours later,

5

on April 14, 2021 at 10:25pm, Plaintiff served final verified supplemental responses to

6

Defendants via email. (Doc. 139 at 1, Pl.'s Ex. A at 4, Pl.'s Ex.Cat 9-60.) Despite

7

Plaintiffs April 14, 2021 supplemental responses, Defendants contend Plaintiffs

8

responses to Interrogatories and RFPs remain deficient. (Doc. 140.)

9

III.

10

LEGAL STANDARD

A party is entitled to seek discovery of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to ·

11

his claims and proportional to the needs of the case. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(l). "The party

12

seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that his request satisfies the

13

relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b )( 1)." Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 07cv200 JM (PCL ), 2009

14

WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (citing Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D.

15

603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995)). District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy

16

for discovery purposes.

See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

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

2

Plaintiff provided "preliminary" unverified responses to the RF As, Interrogatories, and
RFPs on January 23, 2021, and later produced verification pages on February 25, 2021.
(Doc. 137-1 at 3; Doc. 137-2, Defs.' Ex.Bat 11-17, Defs.' Ex.Fat 42-54, Defs.' Ex. J at
103-128.) On March 8, 2021, Plaintiff served unverified supplemental responses to the
foregoing discovery. (Doc. 137-2 at Defs.' Ex. D at 19-25, Defs.' Ex. G at 55-71.) After
an informal discovery conference with the undersigned's chambers on March 10, 2021,
Plaintiff served another set of unverified supplemental responses to the RF As,
Interrogatories, and RFPs. (Doc. 137-2 at 2, ,r 8; see also Defs.' Ex.Eat 27-32, Defs.' Ex.
Hat 73-90, Defs.' Ex.Kat 130-157.)
3
On March 10, 2021, the parties contacted the undersigned's chambers for an informal
discovery conference. (Doc. 133.) The Court set a telephonic discovery conference for
March 16, 2021. (Doc. 136.) At the conference, the parties stipulated to Plaintiffs
production of verified responses to the RF As and Interrogatories and amended responses
to the RFPs on or before April 2, 2021. (Doc. 136.) Plaintiff did nottimely serve verified
and amended discovery per the parties' stipulation. (Doc. 137-2 at 3, ,r 11.) Plaintiffs
counsel alleges he timely notified Defendants' counsel of the delay in production, which
he contends was caused by mail delays. (Doc. 139 at 1.)
3
l 7-cv-00813-JLS-RBM

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 143 Filed 08/10/21 PageID.1077 Page 4 of 12

1 "Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that discovery should
2

be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining[,] or supporting its objections."

3

Bryant, 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (citing DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458

4

(C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2002)). District courts have broad discretion to limit discovery, where

5 the discovery sought, is "unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from
6

some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive." FED. R.

7

Crv. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

8
9

IV.
A.

DISCUSSION

Meet & Confer Efforts

10

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 26.l(a), the Court will not entertain a motion to compel

11

made under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26-37 unless the parties have previously met

12

and conferred concerning all discovery disputes. CivLR 26.l(a). As outlined above, the

13

parties extensively met and conferred and attempted to resolve their discovery dispute at

14

an informal discovery conference before the undersigned. See supra, pp. 2-3. As such,

15

the MTC will be considered on the merits.

16

B.

Plaintiffs Responses to RFAs, Set One

17

The opening brief of Defendant's MTC requested that the Court deem RFA Nos. 1-

18

5 admitted based upon Plaintiffs failure to provide unqualified admissions or denials.

19

(Doc. 137-1 at 4-8.) However, Defendants' Reply stipulates that "the issues involving ..

20

. [RF A Nos. 1-5] [are] resolved." (Doc. 140 at 2.) Therefore, Defendants' request to deem

21

RFA Nos. 1-5 admitted is DENIED AS MOOT.

22

C.

Plaintiffs Responses to Interrogatories, Set One

23

As to the Interrogatories served on November 24, 2020 (Doc. 137-2, Defs.' Ex.Eat

24

34-40), Defendants contend Plaintiff failed to fully respond to Interrogatory Nos. 1-6, 8~

25

9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20--21, and 23-24, despite Plaintiffs verified supplemental

26

responses dated April 2, 2021 and served via email on April 14, 2021 (Doc. 139, PL Ex. C

27

at43-60). (Doc.137-1 at8;Doc.140at2.) PlaintiffsOppositiondoesnotrespondtothe

28

discovery deficiencies raised by Defendants, nor does he reassert any objections to the

4
17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 143 Filed 08/10/21 PageID.1078 Page 5 of 12

1

underlying Interrogatories. (Doc. 139.) Rather, Plaintiff contends the MTC is moot

2

because he served supplemental responses where necessary. (Id. at 2.)

3

Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs interrogatory practice. FED.

4

R. Crv. P. 33. As to an interrogatory's scope, it "may relate to any matter that may be

5

inquired into under Rule 26(b)." FED. R. Crv. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must

6

answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate objection(s) with specificity or, to the

7

extent the interrogatory is not objected to, by "answer[ing] separately and fully in writing

8

under oath." FED. R. Crv. P. 33(b).

9

When considering motions to compel, courts in this district "generally consider[]

10

only those objections that have been timely asserted in the initial response to the discovery

11

request and that are subsequently reasserted and relied upon in response to the motion to

12

compel." See SolarCity Corp. v. Doria, No. 16cv3085, 2018 WL 467898, at *3 (S.D. Cal.

13

Jan. 18, 2018); Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Earl Scheib of Cal., Inc., No. 12cv2646-JAH-

14

JMA, 2013 WL 12073836, at *2 n.l (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013) (deeming objections raised

15

in response to discovery request but not raised in discovery motion as moot or waived).

16

Since Plaintiff did not reassert any objections to any Interrogatory in his Opposition

17

to the MTC, these objections are deemed waived. As such, the Court will only analyze the

18

completeness of each Interrogatory response. See FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b).

19

i.

Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6

20

Defendants raise several issues with Plaintiff's responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2,

21

3, 4, and 6. (Doc. 137-1 at 9.) Defendants contend the responses improperly refer to

22

records, some of which the County does not possess which makes it impossible to extract

23

information from the referenced records. (Id.) Plaintiff's verified responses to these

24

Interrogatories dated April 2, 2021 solely refer to medical records from SDJC and the

25

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). (Doc. 139, Pl.' s Ex.

26

Cat 45-50.) However, in reviewing Plaintiff's response to RFP No. 3 (i.e., requesting all

27

documents for medical treatment Plaintiff received from five years prior to the incident to

28

present), Plaintiff produced these referenced records to Defendants. (Doc. 139, Pl.'s Ex.
5
l 7-cv-00813-JLS-RBM

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 143 Filed 08/10/21 PageID.1079 Page 6 of 12

1 C at 18.) Therefore, Defendants' argument as to the lack of access to the referenced records
2

is not well-taken.

3

For Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, Defendants ask Plaintiff to "describe any physical,

4

emotional, or mental condition" Plaintiff experienced before and after the incident. (Doc.

5

137-2, Defs.' Ex. E at 35.) Plaintiff provided detailed, responsive information as to his

6

conditions and he alleges the symptoms subsided "once Plaintiff left the custody of the

7

[SDCJ]." (Doc. 139, Pl.'s Ex. Cat 45-47.) For these reasons, Defendants' MTC as to

8

Interrogatory Nos. 1-3 is DENIED.

9

In Interrogatory No. 4, Defendants ask Plaintiff to "identify all health care or mental

10

health providers YOU received treatment from for. injuries YOU attribute to this

11

INCIDENT." (Doc. 137-2, Defs.' Ex. E at 36.) Instead of identifying any specific

12

providers, Plaintiff referred to his SDCJ and CDCR medical records, which were

13

concurrently produced in response to RFP No. 3. (Doc. 139, Pl.'s Ex.Cat 18.) Rule 33(d)

14

provides that if an answer may be ascertained from a party's business records, and if the

15

burden of ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the

16

responding party may answer by specifying the records to be reviewed or giving the

17

interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine the records. But even when Rule

18

33(d) may be utilized, the responding party must specify the records that must be reviewed

19

"in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily

20

as the responding party could[.]" See FED. R. Crv. P. 33(d)(l). While Defendants are

21

already in possession of Plaintiff's medical records from SDCJ and CDCR, Plaintiff's

22

response is deficient because it solely refers to medical records without providing any detail

23

for purposes of enabling Defendants to ascertain the treatment Plaintiff obtained for which

24

he attributes to the claims at issue. See FED. R. CIV. P. 33(d)(l ); see also Vaught v. Clark,

25

No. 2:09-cv-3422 MCE CKD P, 2012 WL 5381518, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2012)

26

(granting motion to compel answer to interrogatory seeking contact information of

27

providers when prose prisoner's responses solely referred to medical records); McClellan

28

v. Kern Cnty. Sheriff's Office, No. 1:10-cv-0386-LJO-MJS (PC), 2015 WL 4598871, at *5
6
l 7-cv-00813-JLS-RBM

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 143 Filed 08/10/21 PageID.1080 Page 7 of 12

1 (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2015) (granting motion to compel response to interrogatory requesting
2

identification of health care providers that treated pro se prisoner while at CDCR and Kem

3

County Sheriffs Department); Shorter v. Baca, No. CV 12-7337-NS-AGR, 2013 WL

4

12133826, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2013) (compelling plaintiff to disclose witnesses she

5

may use to support her claims). For these reasons, Defendants' MTC as to Interrogatory

6

No. 4 is GRANTED.

'

7

In Interrogatory No. 6, Defendants ask Plaintiff to "identify. any and all health care

8

providers, including mental health and substance abuse providers that have treated [him]

9

in the last ten years." (Doc. 137-2, Defs.' Ex.Eat 36.) After again referring to SDCJ and

10

CDCR records, Plaintiff responds he was "treated by various San Diego County doctors,

11

nurses, nurse practitioners, psychiatrists, psychologists, and other health care

12

professionals" including CDCR and jail staff. (Doc. 139, Pl.'s Ex. Cat 49-50.) The

13

Interrogatory is not limited to Plaintiffs time as a pretrial detainee (i.e., from August 3,

14

2016 and August 27, 2017}-it seeks identification of all providers from 2011 through

15

2021. (Doc. 137-2, Defs.' Ex.Eat 36.) Because Plaintiff is claiming physical, mental,

16

and emotional injuries as a result of his confinement, the requested information is relevant

17

and necessary for Defendants to prepare their defense. (See Doc. 110 at 10, ,r 29); see also

18

FED. R. Crv. P. 26(b )(1 ). Additionally, seeking identification of these providers for the last

19

decade is sufficiently limited in scope, as it seeks records pre-dating his confinement by

20

five years. McClellan, 2015 WL 4598871, at *5 (compelling answer to interrogatory

21

seeking identification of health care providers for last ten years); see also Baca, 2013 WL

22

12133826, at *2 (compelling answer to interrogatory seeking identity of health care

23

providers and diagnoses within the five-year period preceding the incident). Therefore,

24

Defendants' MTC as to Interrogatory No. 6 is GRANTED.

25

ii. Interrogatory No. 5

26

In Interrogatory No. 5, Defendants ask Plaintiff to "describe all grievances, inmate

27

request[s], or other correspondence or appeals [he] submitted to the [SDCJ] or its staff

28

regarding the [incident]." (Doc. 137°2, Defs.' Ex.Eat 36.) In response, Plaintiff provides
7
17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM .

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 143 Filed 08/10/21 PageID.1081 Page 8 of 12

1 a lengthy list of grievances, including the date and content of the grievance, submitted
2

while Plaintiff was in custody. (Doc. 139, Pl.'s Ex.Cat 47-49.) He supplemented his

3

response stating, "I also submitted a substantial number of grievances relating to being

4

placed in segregation/solitary confinement without expl[a]nation or cause, not being

5

allowed yard or outdoor recreation [and] being kept awake or woken frequently that went

6

unanswered." (Id. at 49.) Plaintiff's response refers Defendants to his "JIMS log for

7

further details on grievances submitted and any possible response given." 4 (Id. at 47.)

8

While Defendants contend Plaintiff's response is incomplete, they offer no explanation as

9

to how the burden of ascertaining the answer through examination of Plaintiff's JIMS

10

records is not substantially the same for either party. See FED. R. Crv. P. 33(d); see also

11

Fresenius Med. Care Holding Inc. v. Baxter Int'!., Inc., 224 F.R.D. 644, 650 (N.D. Cal.

12

2004) ("In order for a party to take advantage of the alternative procedure set forth in Rule

13

33(d) the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer must be substantially the same for

14

the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served ... "). For these reasons,

15

Defendants' MTC as to Interrogatory No. 5 is DENIED.

iii.

16

Interrogatory Nos. 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, and23

17

In Interrogatory Nos. 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, and 23, Defendants ask Plaintiff to identify

18

any documents that support his alleged claims, therefore, they are addressed together for

19

purposes ofthis MTC. (Doc. 137-2, Defs.' Ex.Eat 36-38.) Plaintiff refers Defendants to

20

his JIMS records, which consist of copies of grievances submitted while in custody. (Doc.

21

139 at 52-59.) Additionally, Plaintiff references his letter to Sheriff Gore regarding

22

Plaintiff's complaint with the conditions of his confinement and Sergeant Boorman's

23

response. (Id.) In Interrogatory Nos. 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, and 23, Plaintiff inappropriately

24

cross-references his response to Interrogatory No. 5 which details all grievances, inmate

25

requests, and other correspondence or appeals Plaintiff submitted to SDJC. See FED. R.

26

Crv. P. 33(b)(3) (answers to interrogatories must be answered separately and fully); see

27
28
4

JIMS refers to the jail information management system.
8
l 7-cv-00813-JLS-RBM

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 143 Filed 08/10/21 PageID.1082 Page 9 of 12

1 McClellan, 2015 WL 4598871, at *5 (finding response to interrogatory cross-referencing
2

previous interrogatory insufficient based upon Rule 33(b)(3)'s completeness requirement).

3

Without consideration to the inappropriate cross-reference to Interrogatory No. 5, Plaintiff

4

specifies the records that must be reviewed in sufficient detail to enable Defendants to

5' ascertain the answer to the Interrogatories. See FED. R. CIV. P. 33(d); see also Fresenius
6

Med. Care Holding Inc., 224 F.R.D. at 650. For these reasons, Defendants' MTC as to

7

Interrogatory Nos. 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, and 23 is DENIED.

8

iv.

Interrogatory Nos. 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24

9

In Interrogatory Nos. 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24, Defendants ask Plaintiff to identify

10

all witnesses that have knowledge of any facts that support Plaintiffs claims, therefore,

11

they are addressed together. (Doc. 137-2, Defs.' Ex.Eat 36-38.) In response, Plaintiff

12

states the identification of the other inmates and deputies present during the relevant time

13

frame is readily accessible to Defendants through JIMS records and/or jail housing logs

14

and personnel schedules. (Doc. 139, PL Ex. C at 51-60.) Additionally, in response to

15

Interrogatory No. 12's request for identification of witnesses who may have knowledge of

16

Plaintiffs claim that he exhausted administrative remedies, Plaintiff explains "when

17

deputies did sign for grievances they listed their badge numbers instead of their names at

18

times and [P]laintiff cannot identify those individuals by name ..." (Id. at 52-53.)

19

With respect to identifying SDCJ deputies that may have knowledge of facts that

20

support rlaintiff s claims, Plaintiff specifies the records that must be reviewed in sufficient

21

detail to enable Defendants to ascertain the answer. FED. R. Crv. P. 33(d). However,

22

Plaintiff should supplement his responses to affirmatively state whether he can identify

23

witnesses other than SDCJ employees who may have knowledge of facts to support

24

Plaintiffs claims. See Jones v. Walinga, No. I: 19-cv-396-DAD-HBK, 2021 WL 2474500,

25

at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 17, 2021) (compelling answer to interrogatory seeking identities of

26

plaintiffs inmate witnesses who support plaintiffs claims). Therefore, Defendants' MTC

27

as to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and24 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

28

IN PART. Plaintiff must supplement his responses no later than August 24, 2021.
9
l 7-cv-00813-JLS-RBM

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 143 Filed 08/10/21 PageID.1083 Page 10 of 12

1

D.

Plaintiffs Responses to RFPs, Set One

2

As to RFP Nos. 1--48 served on November 24, 2020 (Doc. 137-2, Defs.' Ex. I at

3

101 ), Defendants contend Plaintiff failed to unequivocally respond whether he produced

4

all items in his possession, custody, or control. (Doc. 137-1 at 10.) Defendants took issue

5

with the phrasing of Plaintiffs March 8, 2021 supplemental responses which stated,

6

"[w]ithout waiving any right of objection plaintiff responds as follows: After diligent

7

search and inquiry plaintiff produced all unobjectionable documents currently in his

8

possession, custody, or control with objections as stated in writing." (Doc. 137-1 at 10;

9

see also Defs.' Ex. K at 132-156 (emphasis added).)

Plaintiffs April 14, 2021

10

supplemental responses are phrased slightly differently as follows, "[w]ithout waiving any

11

right of objection whatsoever plaintiff responds as follows: After diligent search and

12

inquiry plaintiff produced all documents currently in his possession, custody, or control

13

with objections as stated in writing." (Doc. 139, Pl.'s Ex.Cat 15--42.) Despite the revised

14

phrasing, Defendants contend the responses are still evasive and imply items are being

15

withheld. (Doc. 140 at 3.)

16

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule 26(b).

17

FED. R. Crv. P. 34(a). "For each item or category, the response must either state that

18

inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the

19

request, including the reasons." FED. R. Crv. P. 34(b)(2)(B). An objection must state

20

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

21

R. Crv. P. 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the part objected to

22

and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. The responding party is responsible

23

for the production of all items in "the responding party's possession, custody, or control."

24

FED. R. Crv. P. 34(a)(l).

25

Plaintiffs qualified responses stating "with objections as stated in writing" is

26

evasive because it does not indicate whether any responsive materials are being withheld

27

on the basis of that objection. See FED. R. Crv. P. 34(b)(2)(C). For this reason, Defendants'

28

///
10
l 7-cv-00813-JLS-RBM

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 143 Filed 08/10/21 PageID.1084 Page 11 of 12

1 MTC as to RFP Nos. 1--48 is GRANTED. Plaintiff must serve amended responses no later
2

than August 24, 2021.

3

E.

4

Defendants request the Court award them reasonable expenses incurred in bringing

5

this MTC, which comprise of attorney's fees in the amount of$1,442.10. (Doc. 137 at 2.)

6

The Declaration of Jennifer Martin alleges counsel spent 5.7 hours preparing the MTC at

7

an hourly rate of$253.00. (Doc. 137-2 at 4.) Plaintiff asks the Court to deny any request

8

for sanctions as Plaintiff served verified supplemental responses. (Doc. 139 at 2.) Other

9

than the foregoing statement, Plaintiff does not specifically address Defendants' request

· 10

for reasonable expenses incurred. (Id.) However, Plaintiff alleges he "acted as diligently

11

Reasonable Expenses

as possible in relaying the written discovery between the County and [his] client." (Id.)

12

In determining the reasonableness of a party's request for payment of expenses,

13

including attorney's fees, courts must consider whether circumstances exist that make an

14

award of expenses unjust.

15

and denied in part, the court "may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the

16

reasonable expenses for the motion."

17

FED.

R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii). If the motion is granted in part

FED.

R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(C) (emphasis added).

Given that this motion was granted in part and denied in part, the Court, in its

See

18

discretion, declines to apportion reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees.

19

Williams v. Cnty. ofSan Diego, No. l 7-cv-00815-MMA (JLB), 2019 WL 2330227, at *11

20

(S.D. Cal. May 31, 2019) (court declined to apportion reasonable expenses because motion

21

to compel granted and denied in part). Additionally, the underlying circumstances of this

22

discovery dispute would make an award of expenses unjust. Viewing Plaintiffs discovery

23

responses in totality, Plaintiff made a good-faith effort to provide responsive information

24

and supplement discovery when requested. Although the meet and confer process and

25

supplemental productions of discovery spanned over the course of several months, Plaintiff

26

is a prisoner and his counsel dealt with delays in transmitting information to his client. (See

27

Doc. 139 at 1.) Considering all of the foregoing, Defendants' request for payment of

28

expenses is DENIED.
11
l 7-cv-00813-JLS-RBM

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 143 Filed 08/10/21 PageID.1085 Page 12 of 12

V.

1

2
3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and as outlined in detail above, the undersigned GRANTS

IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' MTC. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

4

(1)

The MTC as to RFA Nos. 1-5 is DENIED AS MOOT;

5

(2)

The MTC as to Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, and 23 1s

DENIED;

6

7

(3)

The MTC as to Interrogatory No. 4 and 6 is GRANTED;

8

(4)

The MTC as to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24 is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff must supplement his'responses

9

10
11

no later than August 24, 2021;
(5)

responses no later than August 24, 2021;

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

The MTC as to RFP Nos. 1--48 is GRANTED. Plaintiff must serve amended

(6)

Defendants' request for reasonable expenses incurred in bringing this MTC,
comprising of attorney's fees in the amount of$1,442.10, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 10, 2021

~

HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE mDGE

20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM