Boyd v. Carney et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion for Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(MET) cc: plaintiff

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
6 JAMES A. BOYD,

No. C11-5782 BHS/KLS

7
8

Plaintiff,
v.

9 BRENT CARNEY, K. ROBINSON, and
RICK CROSS,
10
Defendants.
11
12

ORDER GRANTING IN PART/DENYING
IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. ECF No. 13. Having reviewed the

13

motion, Defendants’ opposition (ECF No. 16), Plaintiff’s reply (ECF No. 17), and balance of the

14

record, the Court finds and ORDERS:

15
16

BACKGROUND
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that in June 2011, while he was incarcerated at the

17
18

Washington State Penitentiary (WSP), Defendants changed his mandatory Halal meat diet to a

19

metabolic diet without any medical dietary authority and without first consulting him and

20

contrary to Plaintiff’s religious beliefs. ECF No. 5, at 5-6. Plaintiff alleges that First

21

Amendment right to exercise his religion and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free of

22

discrimination. He also claims that Defendants violated his rights under the Religious Land Use

23

and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. (2000 ed) (RLUIPA).

24
DISCUSSION
25
26

On November 21, 2011, Defendants received “Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and
Request for Production to Brent Carney, K Robinson, and Rick Cross.” ECF No. 16, Exh. 1
ORDER - 1

1

(Declaration of Ohad M. Lowy, ¶ 3). On December 20, 2011, Defendants served Plaintiff with

2

their objections and responses and made 82 pages of responsive documents available to Plaintiff.

3

Id. ¶ 4; Motion, Attachment 1. On January 23, 2012, Defendants’ counsel received from

4

Plaintiff a request to meet and confer regarding discovery responses. Id., ¶ 5. On January 30,

5
2012, the parties participated in a telephonic conference but were unable to resolve their
6
7

discovery dispute. Id., ¶ 6.
In his motion to compel, Plaintiff addresses the sufficiency of several of Defendants’

8
9

responses, but his objections may be distilled to two issues. The first is that he objects to

10

Defendants’ insistence that documents responsive to his discovery requests will be made

11

available for inspection and review either by his representative, by CD, or at a cost of 10 cents

12

per page in addition to postage costs. The second is that he disagrees with the objections

13
submitted in response to Request for Production 5.
14
15
16

A.

Production for Inspection, CD, or Cost – Request for Production of Documents 1, 2,
3, and 4
Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of documents at Defendants’ expense is

17
denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) requires the producing party to make the relevant production
18
19

available so that the party making the request may “inspect, copy, test or sample” any designated

20

documents. By offering to provide the documents in electronic format, making them available

21

for inspection by a representative, or offering them in hard copy at cost, Defendants have met

22

their obligation under the rule. There is nothing in Rule 34(a) that requires Defendant to pay for

23

the cost of the production. Plaintiff’s indigent status does not dictate a contrary finding. He

24

remains responsible for prosecuting his case and for funding his litigation. See, United States v.

25
26

MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321, 96 S. Ct. 2086, 2089, 48 L. Ed. 2d 666 (1976) (“the expenditure
of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress
ORDER - 2

1

...”]. The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides for the payment of filing fee and

2

service of process only. In Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit

3

reiterated the limited role of prison authorities in assisting prisoners with their litigation. Prison

4

authorities are only required to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal

5
papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons
6
7

trained in the law. Silva, 658 F.3d at 1102 (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977)).

8

The Court further held that this assistance is only limited to the pleading stage. Id. (citing Lewis

9

v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 384 (1996)).

10
11
12

B.

Request for Production No. 2
Plaintiff also complains as to the completeness of Defendants’ response to Request for

Production No. 2. In that request, Plaintiff asked Defendant Cross to produce all records, email

13
and chrono screen communications regarding Defendant Cross’s treatment of Mr. Boyd and
14
15

discussions between Defendant Cross with WDOC and WSP staff (including Carney and

16

Robinson) regarding Boyd’s Halal and metabolic diets. ECF No. 13, at 13. Although

17

Defendants lodged objections, they also made responsive documents available for inspection

18

either by Plaintiff’s representative, by CD, or at a cost of 10 cents per page (with postage costs).

19

In addition, Defendant Cross states that as to e-mails between himself and Defendants Carney

20

and Robinson, there are no responsive documents in his care, custody or control. Id. This is not

21
22

a complete response as the request was not limited to emails and records between the three

23

defendants. Rather, it was with regard to WDOC and WSP staff, including the named

24

defendants.

25
26

Accordingly, Defendants are directed to provide an amended response to Request for
Production No. 2.
ORDER - 3

1

C.

Request for Production No. 5 to Defendant Carney Regarding Purchase of Halal
Meats

2
3

Defendants objected to this request on relevance grounds and because the documents are

4

not in the possession of Defendant Carney. ECF No. 6, at 5. The undersigned finds that this

5

request is not relevant to the issues in this case. Mr. Boyd has never raised an issue regarding the

6

procurement of Halal meat. His issue in this case is that he wants Halal meat served with his

7

metabolic diet. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of further response from

8

Defendant Carney to Request No. 5 is Denied.

9
Accordingly it is ORDERED:
10
11

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Request for Production No. 2, as limited above,

12

is GRANTED and the balance of his motion to compel (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. Defendants

13

shall provide further responses, if any, to Request for Production No. 2, as directed herein, within

14

twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

15

(2)

The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

16
17

DATED this 30th day of March, 2012.

18

A

19

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 4