Castillo v. Renteria et al

Filing 29

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [ECF. No. 26 ]. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 12/17/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

LEANDRO LEONEL GONZALEZ
CASTILLO,

15
16

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 17-CV-2104-CAB-WVG

v.
[ECF NO. 26]

A. RENTERIA, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Leandro Leonel Gonzalez Castillo filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to

19

42 U.S.C § 1983 against defendants A. Renteria, L. Romero, and R. Segovia (collectively

20

“Defendants”) alleging violations of the First and Eight Amendments. (Compl., ECF No.

21

1.) Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling supplemental responses to interrogatories

22

and requests for production of documents. (Mot., ECF No. 26.)

23

I. BACKGROUND

24

Plaintiff alleges that sometime “in the middle of 2015” Renteria solicited Plaintiff to

25

be an informant. (Compl. at 8:22-25.) Plaintiff declined which triggered harassment from

26

Renteria. (Id. at 8:25-28.) Plaintiff alleges Romero was complicit in this harassment. (Id.)

27

Plaintiff claims that on February 6, 2016 this harassment culminated in a sexual assault by

28

Renteria under the guise of a body search. (Id. at 9:5-20.) Plaintiff claims that during a
1
17-CV-2104-CAB-WVG

1

subsequent investigation, Segovia threatened to kill Plaintiff in retaliation for reporting the

2

incident. (Id. at 10:23-27.)

3

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 12, 2017. (Compl.) On April 24, 2018, the

4

Court entered a Scheduling Order, formally opening discovery in the matter. (ECF No. 13.)

5

On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff served on Defendants his first set of interrogatories. (Mot. at

6

5:24-26.) On or about June, 13, 2018, Defendants served on Plaintiff their responses to

7

Plaintiff’s interrogatories. (Mot. at 76.) On July 8, 2018, Plaintiff served on Defendants his

8

first set of requests for production of documents. (Mot. at 6:9-11.) On or about August 21,

9

2018, Defendants served on Plaintiff their responses to the requests for production of

10

documents. (Mot. at 94, 101, 112.) On October 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed the present Motion.

11

Defendants filed an Opposition on October 31, 2018. (Opp’n, ECF No. 27.)

12

II. LEGAL STANDARD

13

Pursuant to Rule 26, a party:

14

may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of 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.

15
16
17
18
19

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The party “seeking to compel discovery has the burden of

20

establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements” and the “party opposing

21

discovery bears the burden of showing that discovery should not be allowed, and has the

22

burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Lofton v. Verizon Wireless

23

(VAW) LLC, 308 F.R.D. 276, 280-81 (N.D. Cal. 2015); see also Blankenship v. Hearst

24

Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). “District courts have broad discretion in

25

determining relevancy for discovery purposes.” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor

26

Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); see also U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v.

27

Lee Investments LLC, 641 F.3d 1126, fn. 10 (9th Cir. 2011) (“District courts have wide

28

latitude in controlling discovery[.]”).
2
17-CV-2104-CAB-WVG

1

III. DISCUSSION

2

Plaintiff moves for compelled responses to his first set of interrogatories and requests

3

for production of documents. Plaintiff claims the information sought is “highly relevant”

4

without providing any further explanation as to how the information is relevant. (Mot. at

5

13:21.)

6

A. Interrogatory Nos. 20 and 21

7

Interrogatory No. 20 asks:

8

Do you have [sic] ever been disciplined in the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation?

9
10

(Id. at 31.)

11

In response to this, Defendants objected on the grounds that, inter alia, the

12

interrogatory is overbroad as to time and that it is not “limited to incidents that are

13

substantially similar to the claims in the lawsuit,” and that it seeks “confidential

14

information that is integral to the safety and security of the institution, staff, and inmates,

15

and cannot be released to the inmates.” (Id. at 49:25-50:7.) Defendants then responded they

16

were not disciplined for sexual assault or failing to protect an inmate from sexual assault.

17

(Id. at 50:8-11; at 62-63; at 74-75.) In addition, Segovia’s response includes a denial of any

18

discipline for retaliation given the additional allegation against Segovia.

19

Interrogatory No. 21 asks:

20

If you have been disciplined; Please, specific [sic] the reason why?

21

(Id. at 32.)

22

Defendants made the same objections and provided the same response to

23

interrogatory 21 as interrogatory 20. Plaintiff simply claims the information he seeks is

24

highly relevant. (Id. at 13:21.) Without something more, Plaintiff has failed to meet the low

25

burden of establishing relevancy. This is because Plaintiff’s request seeks everything from

26

potentially highly relevant disciplinary records involving sexual assault to administrative

27

discipline due to something as benign as tardiness. However, assuming arguendo Plaintiff

28

had met his burden, the outcome would be no different. As Defendants point out, the
3
17-CV-2104-CAB-WVG

1

interrogatories are overbroad on their face because there is no limitation to scope.

2

Moreover, in the context of prisoner litigation, courts have limited historical information

3

of prison staff to the context of the allegations in the subject complaints. See Johnson v. de

4

la Trinidad, 2018 WL 3417568, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (inmate only entitled to complaints

5

regarding excessive force where complaint alleged excessive force); Robinson v. Adams,

6

2011 WL 2118753, at *17 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (same). Accordingly, the Court finds

7

Defendants answers to interrogatories 20 and 21 to be sufficient and sustains their

8

objections.

9

B. Interrogatory No. 22

10

Interrogatory no. 22 is directed at Renteria only and asks:

11

How Defendant R. Segovia, became your witness in the staff complaint appeal
# RJD-B-16-02860, against you? (exhibits# 37 and 38 in the Complaint Under
the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983). [sic]

12
13
14

(Mot. at 51.) Renteria objected that the interrogatory assumed facts not in evidence and

15

then responded that he “did not know why [Segovia] was questioned.” (Id.) Plaintiff has

16

provided no argument regarding the relevance of this interrogatory or any context for the

17

Court. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden that the request

18

satisfies the relevancy requirements and no further response from Defendants is required.

19

C. Requests for Production

20

Plaintiff claims Romero has provided insufficient responses to requests for

21

production of document nos. 5 and 6, Renteria to request nos. 6 and 7, and Segovia to

22

request no. 8. (Id. at 6:16-23.)

23

Request No. 5 served on Romero seeks:

24

Any and all formal and informal written complaints (including but not limited
to 602 forms) against you, alleging excessive use of force, that accurred [sic]
in Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, (including all written responses,
appeals, reports, investigations, and/or correspondence regarding the

25
26
27
28

4
17-CV-2104-CAB-WVG

complaints).1, 2

1
2

(Id. at 83.) Request No. 6 served on Romero seeks:

3

Any and all documents relating that you have been disciplined for excessive
use of force against prisoners in Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.3

4
5

(Id. at 83-84.)

6

In response to this, Defendants objected on the grounds that, inter alia, the

7

interrogatory is overbroad as to time and that it is not limited to incidents “that are

8

substantially similar to the claims in the lawsuit,” and that it seeks “confidential

9

information that is integral to the safety and security of the institution, staff, and inmates,

10

and cannot be released to the inmates.” (Id. at 92:16-93:1, 99:1-15, 108:3-13.) Defendants

11

limit their response to those of sexual assault and declare that “no such documents exist.”

12

(Id.)

13

As with the interrogatories above, Plaintiff fails to establish how complaints and

14

other documents regarding excessive force generally, rather than sexual assault, relates to

15

the claims in the present case. Given this, the Court sustains Defendants objections.

16

IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Defendants objections are SUSTAINED and Plaintiff’s

17
18

Motion to Compel is DENIED.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 17, 2018

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Request for production no. 6 served on Renteria is identical except it limits the scope to those
complaints occurring after March of 2015. (Mot. at 80.)
2
Request for production no. 8 served on Segovia is identical except it is not limited to complaints
originating at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. (Id. at 86.)
3
Request for production no. 7 served on Renteria is identical except it limits the scope to those
complaints occurring after March of 2015. (Mot. at 80.)
5
17-CV-2104-CAB-WVG