MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court screened Plaintiff's Eighth Amended Complaint and found that it stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Jones, Moore, Burns, Dava, Kim, Edmonds, Galvan, C. Gonzalez, M. Gonzalez, Johnson, O'Neal, Parsons, Raygoza, Roth, Tumayo, Urbano, Vicente, Zakari, Bastianon, Campos, Casio, Cisneros, and Coronado for violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 160.)
Defendants Jones, Moore, Burns, Dava, Kim, Galvan, C. Gonzalez, M. Gonzalez, Johnson, O'Neal, Parsons, Roth, Tumayo, Urbano, Vicente, Casio, Cisneros, and Coronado have appeared and answered Plaintiff's complaint. (ECF No. 93, 147, 167.) The United States Marshal Service is in the process of attempting to serve Defendant Campos. (ECF No. 190.) Service on Defendants Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza was returned unexecuted. (ECF Nos. 177, 179, 193, 194.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 195.) Plaintiff has responded to the order to show cause. (ECF Nos. 197 & 198.)
Before the Court are Plaintiff's March 20, 2014 motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 184), opposed by Defendants Jones, Moore, Burns, Dava, Kim, Galvan, C. Gonzalez, M. Gonzalez, Johnson, O'Neal, Parsons, Roth, Tumayo, Urbano, Vicente, Casio, Cisneros, and Coronado (ECF No. 185), and Plaintiff's July 30, 2014 motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 196).
The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith.
A party may propound interrogatories relating to any matter that may be inquired into under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). The responding party is obligated to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest extent possible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). Any objections must be stated with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4);
Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified.
The court must limit discovery if the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). "In each instance, the determination whether . . . information is discoverable because it is relevant to the claims or defenses depends on the circumstances of the pending action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory Committee's note (2000 Amendment) (Gap Report) (Subdivision (b)(1)).
Plaintiff asserts that he submitted interrogatories to Defendants Coronado, Galvan, Roth, and Cisneros on February 7, 2014, and that Defendants refused to provide the requested information. (ECF No. 184 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that he conferred with Defendants in good faith in an effort to secure the information but they refused to give it to him. The interrogatories sought the first and middle names of all of the Defendants, documents containing the same, as well as information concerning a "citation and violation report" relating to an inmate appeal. Plaintiff asserts that he needs to supply this information to an "out side agency" in order to get other information necessary to prove his case. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that the information is necessary in order to serve the remaining unserved defendants in this case.
Defendants first point out that the interrogatories at issue were propounded on Defendants Tamayo, Roth, and Urbano, rather than on Coronado, Galvan, Roth, and Cisneros. (ECF No. 185 at 2.) Defendants assert that Plaintiff's motion to compel was filed without an attempt to meet and confer, and that Defendants properly objected to each interrogatory.
Having considered the motion and Defendants' opposition and the relevant discovery requests and responses, the Court rules as follows.
Interrogatory No. 1 seeks the first and middle names of the responding defendants, while Interrogatory No. 3 seeks the first and middle names of all defendants in this action. Due to the similarity between these interrogatories, they are analyzed together.
Plaintiff has not explained how the first and middle names of the defendants that have been served — that is, Defendants Jones, Moore, Burns, Dava, Kim, Galvan, C. Gonzalez, M. Gonzalez, Johnson, O'Neal, Parsons, Roth, Tumayo, Urbano, Vicente, Casio, Cisneros, and Coronado — are necessary to this action. These defendants have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and Plaintiff suffers no impediment by proceeding against them under only their last names. Although Plaintiff asserts that he needs this information in order to get other information from an outside agency, he does not explain what information he hopes to obtain from the outside agency, how the information is necessary to prove his case, or whether he has attempted to obtain this information using only the information he currently has, i.e., Defendants' first initials and last names. While having full names could possibly aid Plaintiff in discovery, Plaintiff has not explained how. Defendants' objections with respect to these defendants are sustained. The Court will not compel further responses regarding these defendants.
Defendants' objections regarding Defendants Campos, Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza are far less persuasive. The identity of these defendants is clearly relevant, and Plaintiff has a need for the information since the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and United States Marshals have been unable to identify or locate these defendants using only their first initials and last names. Without further information concerning these defendants' identities, it is likely that Plaintiff's claims against them will be dismissed.
Further, the interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, or compound. It clearly and plainly seeks the full names of the defendants in this action. Nor is it overbroad, given that it is limited to the named defendants.
Defendants imply, but do not affirmatively state, that they may not know the information requested. Of course, the Court cannot require Defendants to provide information they do not have. However, Defendants are obligated to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest extent possible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). In light of Defendants' ambiguous objection, the Court is not convinced that the responding defendants have no means available to obtain the names of the unserved defendants.
Finally, the Court acknowledges that prison employees may have legitimate safety and security reasons for withholding their full names from inmates in many circumstances. However, Defendants' vague references to safety concerns and privacy rights do not suffice to shield them from providing relevant and necessary discovery in this case.
Lastly, given that the CDCR has been unable to locate or identify the unserved defendants — who apparently are or were their own employees — Defendants' concern that unspecified, hypothetical inmates will be able to locate these defendants and threaten their safety seems overstated. This is particularly true for Defendant Zakari, who allegedly is a medical doctor, and whose information therefore should be publically available through the state medical board.
Accordingly, Defendants' objections to Interrogatory No. 3 are overruled as to Defendants Campos, Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza, but sustained as to all other defendants. The Court will grant in part Plaintiff's motion to compel, and will require Defendants to make a further response to Interrogatory No. 3 within thirty days. However, to the extent Defendants are able to articulate more concrete safety or privacy concerns regarding disclosure of the unserved defendants' full names, they may seek leave of the Court to provide the unserved defendants' full names and last known contact information directly to the U.S. Marshal, rather than providing a further response to Plaintiff.
Defendants' objections are sustained. Plaintiff has not shown that the responding defendants' first and middle names are relevant for the reasons stated above. Additionally, to the extent the interrogatory seeks "all documents" containing the responding defendants' first and middle names, it is overbroad and burdensome.
Defendants' objections are sustained. In seeking "all documents" that contain the Defendants' first and middle names, the request is overly broad and burdensome.
Defendants' objections are sustained. It is unclear what documents Plaintiff seeks. The interrogatory therefore is vague and ambiguous.
Defendants' objection that the interrogatory is compound, assumes facts not in evidence, and improperly seeks the production of documents is overruled. These are the type of boilerplate, hyper-technical objections that the Court looks on with disfavor,
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether "exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved."
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.
Accordingly, the court will deny Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel without prejudice.
In light of the Court's ruling that Defendants be required to provide a further response to Interrogatory No. 3, the Court will discharge the order to show cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
