Starkey v. Hernandez et al
Filing
40
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 28 Motion to Appoint Counsel and Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 11/21/18. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ADAM MICHAEL STARKEY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
Case No.: 3:17-cv-01158-JLS-KSC
v.
14
EDWARD HERNANDEZ,
15
Order (1) Denying Plaintiff's Motion
for Appointment of Counsel and (2)
Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Discovery [Doc. No. 28]
Defendant.
16
17
18
I. INTRODUCTION
19
Plaintiff Adam M. Starkey, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
20
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the Court is a
21
Motion filed by plaintiff, in which he requests (1) the Court compel defendant to produce
22
certain documents; and, (2) that counsel be appointed to assist him in the prosecution of
23
his case. [Doc. No. 28.] With respect to the Motion to Compel, plaintiff seeks production
24
of the full personnel records of defendant, a transcript of the May 17, 2016, classification
25
committee meeting, a blueprint to C.S.P. building 4, and plaintiff’s own medical records.
26
[Id.] Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion asserting, inter alia, that plaintiff’s
27
requests are overbroad and raise security concerns. [Doc. No. 30.] Plaintiff then filed a
28
Reply [Doc. No. 31] narrowing his requests, and after the issuance of an Order from the
1
3:17-cv-01158-JLS-KSC
1
Court [Doc. No. 32], defendant filed supplemental briefing to address plaintiff’s narrowed
2
discovery requests [Doc. No. 33].
3
II. BACKGROUND
4
Plaintiff alleges defendant attacked him after he filed an inmate appeal against
5
defendant. Plaintiff asserts that defendant violated the Eighth Amendment’s protection
6
against excessive force, and is also liable under state law for assault.
7
A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel
8
Plaintiff requests counsel be appointed on his behalf because he is indigent, has
9
limited knowledge of the law and access to legal authorities, and needs assistance with
10
discovery and amending his Complaint. [Doc. No. 28, p. 6.] This Court has twice
11
previously considered requests by plaintiff for appointment of counsel on similar grounds.
12
[Doc. No. 9, 12.] With the exception of plaintiff’s argument that counsel is needed to help
13
him in amending his Complaint, he offers no new basis to support his request. [Doc. No.
14
28.] There is no information from which this Court could conclude plaintiff lacks the
15
ability to seek leave to amend his Complaint or articulate his claims. The hardships
16
plaintiff faces are shared by all incarcerated litigants lacking legal expertise. Accordingly,
17
for the reasons set forth in the Court’s prior Orders denying plaintiff’s earlier filed Motions
18
for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 13, 16], the Court DENIES plaintiff’s current
19
Motion for Appointment of Counsel without prejudice.
20
B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery
21
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel seeks an order requiring defendant to produce certain
22
documents. [Doc. No. 28.] For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s
23
Motion to Compel.
24
Under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is entitled to
25
seek discovery of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to his or her claims and
26
proportional to the needs of the case.
27
Plaintiff’s narrowed discovery requests are as follows:
28
1. CDCR Personnel records of defendant.
2
3:17-cv-01158-JLS-KSC
1
a. Employment history of when and where defendant was hired.
2
b. When and what posts/assignments he has served.
3
c. Disciplinary history including all grievances, staff complaints, and actions
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
taken by CDCR to discipline him.
2. All records of statements via the word by word transcript of everything that was
said during the May 17, 2016, classification committee.
3. Photographs of the crime scene showing size and measurements of counselor’s
office and dayroom.
4. All medical records regarding the assault and treatment of injuries by CDCR
medical staff. [Doc. No. 31 at 1-2].
11
Plaintiff argues that “[a]ll requested documents . . . are relevant to the litigation as
12
they will be used in the trial proceedings . . . to prove the case . . . .” [Doc. No. 28 at 2.]
13
Plaintiff does not articulate why these documents are relevant in either his original Motion
14
to Compel discovery [Doc. No. 28], or in his Reply brief [Doc. No. 31].
15
1. The CDCR Personnel Records of Defendant
16
Plaintiff seeks the personnel records of defendant, including his employment history,
17
post assignments, and disciplinary history. [Doc. No. 31.] Plaintiff cites Beach v. City of
18
Olathe, Kansas, 203 F.R.D. 489 (D. Kan. 2001) and King v. Conde, 121 F.R.D. 180
19
(E.D.N.Y. 1988) for the proposition that defendant possesses the burden of identifying a
20
specific privilege to prevent the discovery of otherwise relevant confidential information.
21
[Doc. No. 28.] Defendant has asserted both privacy, and the qualified official information
22
privilege, as bases to preclude the production of these documents. [Doc. No. 33 at 4-7.]
23
When a party objects to a discovery request, it is the burden of the party moving to
24
compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. See Lemons v. Camarillo, 2017
25
WL 4700074, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2017); Glass v. Beer, 2007 WL 913876, at *1 (E.D.
26
Cal Mar. 23, 2007). As the moving party, plaintiff has the burden of informing the Court
27
why the information he seeks is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case and why
28
3
3:17-cv-01158-JLS-KSC
1
defendant's privacy privilege-based objections are not justified. Id; see also Hallett v.
2
Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).
3
Defendant cites California Penal Code § 832.7, the California Police Officer’s Bill
4
of Rights, and the procedures set forth in California Evidence Code §§ 1043 and 1045 as
5
the bases for withholding his personnel records. [Doc. No 30 at 4.] “With respect to the
6
disclosure of police files, courts have recognized that privacy interests are not
7
inconsequential.” Kassab v. San Diego Police Dep’t, No. 07-cv-1071, 2008 U.S. Dist.
8
LEXIS 72619, *8 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2008) (citing Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D.
9
653, 660 (N.D. Cal. 1987). Federal courts generally give some weight to state privacy
10
rights and balance the privacy interest against the relevance of the information sought.
11
Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 660. Here, defendant is relying on the above state codes to object to
12
plaintiff’s discovery request on the basis of privacy and confidentiality. Plaintiff, however,
13
has not indicated how defendant’s personnel file is relevant to his claims. Consequently,
14
the Court is has no articulated relevancy to balance against defendant’s asserted privacy
15
privilege. Thus, the asserted privacy privilege protects defendant’s personnel records from
16
production.
17
To trigger the official information privilege under Kelly,
18
an official within the agency must provide an affidavit which states (1) the
agency has maintained the material at issue as confidential; (2) the official
making the declaration has personally reviewed the information in question;
(3) a description of the governmental interest that would be affected; (4) a
description of how disclosure subject to a protective order would create a
substantial risk of harm to the government interest; and (5) a projection of
how much harm would be done if the disclosure was made. Kelly, 114 F.R.D.
at 669-70.
19
20
21
22
23
[Doc. No. 33 at 7.] Defendant’s Declaration of N. Telles meets these general requirements.
24
[Doc. No. 30.] In his Declaration, Mr. Telles states that he is personally familiar with the
25
information and that the information is regarded as confidential, and describes the various
26
security risks (risk of harm) associated with disclosing this information to a prisoner. [Doc.
27
No. 30.]
28
4
3:17-cv-01158-JLS-KSC
1
Once the privilege is established, a party seeking discovery must show that the need
2
for the information sought outweighs the safety and procedural issues the official
3
information privilege is designed to protect. The Court in Kelly outlined a non-exhaustive
4
list of factors that courts may consider when conducting this balancing analysis:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(1) [t]he extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by
discouraging citizens from giving the government information; (2) [t]he
impact upon persons who have given information of having their identities
disclosed; (3) [t]he degree to which government self-evaluation and
consequent program improvement will be chilled by disclosure; (4) [w]hether
the information sought is factual data or evaluative summary; (5) [w]hether
the party seeking the discovery is an actual or potential defendant in any
criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the
incident in question; (6) [w]hether the police investigation has been
completed; (7) [w]hether any intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have
arisen or may arise from the investigation; (8) [w]hether the plaintiff’s suit is
non-frivolous and brought in good faith; (9) [w]hether the information sought
is available through other discovery or from other sources; and (10) [t]he
importance of the information sought to the plaintiffs case.
13
Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 663. Applying these factors, plaintiff has failed to articulate
14
why the records sought are specifically relevant to his case, and whether the
15
declaration fails to meet the Kelly requirements. Accordingly, the Court must
16
DENY his Motion to Compel the production of defendant’s personnel records.
17
2. Transcripts of the classification committee hearing.
18
Plaintiff seeks a word-for-word transcript of the committee hearing. Defendant
19
reports no such transcript exists, and defendant has already produced records related to the
20
hearing. [Doc. No. 33, p.3.] Plaintiff cannot compel the production of a document which
21
has never existed. Thus, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s request to compel the production
22
of the transcripts.
23
3. Photographs with measurements of counselor’s office and dayroom.
24
Originally, plaintiff requested the blueprint to the whole prison building where,
25
presumably, the counselor’s office is located. [Doc. No. 28.] Defendant raised security
26
issues with allowing a prisoner to have access to the prison’s blueprints. [Doc. No. 30.]
27
Plaintiff thereafter narrowed his request to photographs with measurements of the room
28
where plaintiff alleges the assault occurred. However, plaintiff does not articulate how
5
3:17-cv-01158-JLS-KSC
1
these photographs are relevant. And, as defendant pointed out, no photographs with
2
measurements of the counselor’s office currently exist.
3
plaintiff’s request to compel the production of photographs with measurements of the
4
counselor’s office and dayroom.
5
Thus, the Court DENIES
4. Plaintiff’s medical records.
6
Plaintiff has requested defendant provide plaintiff with his medical
7
records. [Doc. No. 28.] Defendant has already provided plaintiff with his
8
complete medical record. Therefore, this request is DENIED as moot.
9
10
11
12
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without
prejudice.
13
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel: (1) the CDCR personnel records of defendant;
14
(2) the transcripts of the classification committee hearing; (3) Plaintiff’s
15
medical records; and, (4) photographs with measurements of counselor’s
16
office and dayroom is DENIED without prejudice.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: November 21, 2018
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
3:17-cv-01158-JLS-KSC
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?