Williams v. Ortega et al

Filing 112

ORDER Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 108 ). The Court denies Plaintiff's request to impose monetary sanctions. The Court orders Defendants to file a declaration explaining whether their production complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) on or before 1/8/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 12/29/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LANCE WILLIAMS,

Case No.: 18cv547-LAB-MDD
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

O. ORTEGA, et al.,

14

Defendants.

[ECF No. 108]

15
16

On December 9, 2020, Lance Williams (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner

17

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983, moved the Court to impose sanctions upon Defendants for

19

withholding documents responsive to his document requests in request for

20

production of documents, set three, numbers 2 and 3. (ECF No. 108).

21

Defendants filed a response in opposition, arguing that they produced all

22

responsive documents in their possession, custody, and control, and that they

23

otherwise validly objected to the requests. (ECF No. 110). For the reasons

24

stated herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request pursuant to Federal

25

Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), but ORDERS Defendants to: (1) conduct a

26

further search of responsive documents to Plaintiff’s requests for production

27

of documents, set three, numbers 2 and 3; (2) conduct a thorough review of
1
18cv547-LAB-MDD

1

the prior production in this case; and (3) file a declaration with the Court

2

explaining whether their production complies with Federal Rule of Civil

3

Procedure 26(g).

4

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

5

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain

6

discovery of "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

limit discovery where the discovery sought is "unreasonably cumulative or

11

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more

12

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

13

A party may request the production of any document within the scope

14

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

15

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

16

requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons." Fed. R.

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must

23

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

24

responding party is responsible for all items in "the responding party's

25

possession, custody, or control." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Actual possession,

26

custody or control is not required. Rather, "[a] party may be ordered to

27

produce a document in the possession of a non-party entity if that party has a
2
18cv547-LAB-MDD

1

legal right to obtain the document or has control over the entity who is in

2

possession of the document." Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620

3

(N.D. Cal. 1995).

4

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c), a party that fails to

5

provide responsive documents it has in its possession, custody, or control, “is

6

not allowed to use that information . . . to supply evidence on a motion, at a

7

hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is

8

harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). In the event a party wrongfully withholds

9

responsive information, sanctions may be imposed under Rule 26(g)(3)

10

against anyone who signed the response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(A)-(3).

11
12

II.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Plaintiff propounded requests for production, set three, around June

13

4, 2020. (ECF No. 65 at 2). As relevant to the instant motion, request

14

number two asks Defendants to produce “all healthcare appeal grievances . . .

15

in the personnel files of all named defendants for actions that are claimed

16

against them in this complaint.” (ECF No. 55 at 14). Plaintiff specifies that

17

for Defendant Valencia, that includes “acts of deliberate indifference to

18

medical and mental health care, failure to act, failure to report incident,

19

failure to protect, dishonesty, falsifying discipline reports, fabrication of

20

charges and evidence, retaliation.” (Id. at 15). Request number three asks

21

Defendants to produce “[a]ll 602 appeal grievances custody and medical filed

22

on R. Valencia by Plaintiff Lance Williams.” (Id. at 15).

23

On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to

24

respond to his requests for production set three. (ECF No. 55). Defendants

25

indicated that they would provide a response to Plaintiff’s third set on or

26

before September 7, 2020. (ECF No. 65 at 2). Accordingly, the Court denied

27

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to his third set. (ECF No. 66 at 3).
3
18cv547-LAB-MDD

1

On September 22, 2020, Plaintiff moved to compel Defendants to

2

respond to his third set of requests for production of documents, numbers 1

3

and 2. (ECF No. 78). However, in moving to compel production of documents

4

responsive to request number 2, Plaintiff only sought “citizen complaints” in

5

the personnel files of all named defendants. (ECF No. 78). Defendants

6

objected on the ground that the term “citizen complaints” is “vague and

7

ambiguous.” (ECF No. 80 at 3). The Court sustained Defendants’ objection.

8

(ECF No. 81).

9

On September 24, 2020, Defendants supplemented their response to

10

Plaintiff’s third set of requests for production of documents. (ECF No. 111 at

11

14). With respect to request number 3, Defendants objected on the grounds

12

that the requested documents “are equally available to Plaintiff as part of his

13

own prison Central file or by request through the prison appeals office.” (Id.).

14

Notwithstanding the objection, Defendants produced CDCR 602 Log No.

15

RJD-A-18-02815 and CDCR 602 Log No. RJD-A-03783 and noted that “there

16

are no other responsive documents.” (Id.).

17
18

III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues Defendants failed to produce healthcare grievances he

19

filed against Defendant Valencia. In support, Plaintiff attaches 602-HC

20

grievances in his possession that Defendants did not produce. (ECF No. 108

21

at 23-47). The grievances in Plaintiff’s possession are responsive to request

22

numbers 2 and 3 because they are healthcare grievances filed by Plaintiff

23

against Defendant Valencia. (See ECF No. 55 at 14-15). Defendants concede

24

that they did not produce these healthcare grievances. (See ECF No. 111 at

25

3). They argue they do not have possession, custody, or control over these

26

healthcare grievances and that they validly objected to Plaintiff’s request on

27

the grounds that they were in Plaintiff’s possession. (Id.). Defendants
4
18cv547-LAB-MDD

1

further contend the Court should uphold its prior Order sustaining their

2

objection to request number 2 on the grounds that it is vague. (Id. at 2).

3

First, Defendants’ objection to request number 2 was raised in

4

response to Plaintiff’s use of the term “citizen complaints.” (ECF No. 80 at 3).

5

To the extent Defendants claim that the term “healthcare appeal grievances”

6

is vague, that objection is overruled. Defendants’ second objection is also

7

meritless. There may be value in determining whether Defendants had

8

documents in their possession, custody, or control despite Plaintiff also

9

having access to them.

10

The fact that Defendants could not find grievances against named

11

defendants in this action begs credulity and the Court is concerned about

12

Defendants’ record keeping and search for records. Notwithstanding these

13

concerns, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is in possession of these

14

documents. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to impose

15

monetary sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1)

16

because the failure to produce was harmless. Instead, the Court ORDERS

17

Defendants to: (1) conduct a further search of responsive documents to

18

Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, set three, numbers 2 and 3;

19

(2) conduct a thorough review of the prior production in this case; and (3) file

20

a declaration with the Court explaining whether their production complies

21

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) on or before January 8, 2021.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 29, 2020

/v(, t ~ 'vJ_ :Jk L
Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
5
18cv547-LAB-MDD