STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Perry C. Blair is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed on March 2, 2018.
This action is proceeding against Defendants Johnson, Ybarra, Alva, Chan, O'Daniels, Franco, Sanchez, Esqueda, Santos and John Doe (Assistant Warden) for deliberate indifference, against Defendants Santos, Esqueda and Ybarra for a due process violation, and against Defendant Johnson for retaliation. More specifically, Plaintiff contends that: (1) Defendant Johnson retaliated against him for using the grievance process by falsifying a final copy of a rules violation report; (2) Defendants Alva, Chan, Esqueda, Franco, Johnson, O'Daniels, Sanchez, Santos, and Ybarra told other inmates that Plaintiff was a "snitch"; (3) Defendants Alva, Chan, Franco, Johnson, O'Daniels, and Sanchez housed Plaintiff with inmates with whom he was incompatible or failed to assist him with respect to his housing situation; and (4) Defendants Esqueda, Santos, and Ybarra committed due process violations in the investigation of and a hearing on two rules violation reports. The alleged misconduct took place at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran in 2013.
On August 30, 2017, Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff's complaint.
On September 1, 2017, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order.
On February 22, 2018, Defendants filed an exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 2, 2018, and Defendants filed a reply on April 9, 2018.
As previously stated, on March 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Defendants filed an opposition on March 23, 2018. Plaintiff did not file a reply and the time period to do has expired. Therefore, this motion is deemed submitted for review without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l).
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of confinement. As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 74, Discovery and Scheduling Order, &4. Further, where otherwise discoverable information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or infringe upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in determining whether disclosure should occur.
However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned.
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.
On December 12, 2017, Plaintiff served his second set of requests for the production of documents. Defendants responded to the requests on January 26, 2018.
In the instant motion to compel, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not adequately responded to nine of his requests for document production. Defendants argue that the requests seek documents that are already available to Plaintiff through a review of his central file. In addition, with regard to documents outside his central file, the requests ask Defendants to generate new documents that do not exist or comb through other inmates' files for items of tangential relevance to his case.
A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party's possession, custody or control: any designated documents or tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) (quotation marks omitted). "Property is deemed within a party's `possession, custody, or control' if the party has actual possession, custody, or control thereof or the legal right to obtain the property on demand."
In responding to discovery requests, a reasonable inquiry must be made, and if no responsive documents or tangible things exist, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1), the responding party should so state with sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the party made a reasonable inquiry and exercised due diligence,
"Plaintiff's entire C-File, including the confidential document from 6-12-13."
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that Plaintiff has equal access to the non-confidential portions of his central file. The request is not proportional to the needs of the case, considering the parties' access to the information, because it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff's possession or more readily available to him through review of his central file. Defendants also object that the request is overbroad in scope because the contents of Plaintiff's entire central file are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Defendants also object to the extent that the request calls for confidential documents in the confidential portion of Plaintiff's central file that are protected from disclosure. First, the request for a "confidential document from 6-12-13" is vague. Further, the request calls for confidential information that, if released, would threaten the safety of staff and inmates and compromise the security of the prison. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3321, 3370(b)-(d), 3450(d)-(e); Cal. Gov. Code § 6254.
Based on the foregoing objections, Defendants will not produce documents in response to this request. With regard to the confidential portion of Plaintiff's central file, Defendants identify confidential documents as listed in the privilege log which are withheld from production.
As laid out above, Defendants are not required to produce documents that are equally available to Plaintiff. (Discovery and Scheduling Order at 2, ECF No. 74.) Plaintiff's institution has provided Plaintiff the ability to review his central file, which is all that is required under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff's motion asserts that his entire central file is relevant because Defendants "have attached labels" to his central file, which single Plaintiff out for harassment by inmates and correctional officers. (Pl.'s Mot. to Compel at 3:16-27, ECF No. 88.) But this allegation is not found anywhere in the SAC; Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have told other inmates that he is a "snitch and need[s] to get dealt with," but does not allege that any Defendant has attached any kind of special label to his central file. (Sec. Amd. Compl. at 16:23-26, ECF No. 14.)
Nor is such allegation plausible; it presupposes that Defendants have unlimited power over unrelated employees (and inmates) at multiple correctional facilities, and are using that power solely to make Plaintiff's life difficult. Finally, a simple inspection of the central file would reveal the label that Plaintiff alleges; there is no reason why Plaintiff requires copies of every page of his central file to determine if such a label exists. Plaintiff has had an opportunity to inspect his central file (and may request another, if he likes), and nothing more is required.
"The Miranda warning, interrogation, and or I.G.I. Unit's video recording of Plaintiff's statement/confession/Miranda warning in connection with R.V.R. Log No. FA-15-08-2073."
Defendants object to this request because it is compound and because the documents and materials requested are not relevant to any claim or defense in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Alva, Chan, Esqueda, Franco, Johnson, O'Daniels, Sanchez, Santos, and Ybarra arose in 2013 at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (SATF). But the Rules Violation Report Log Number FA-15-08-2073 was issued at another institution in 2015. And, it does not involve any of the named Defendants.
Based on the foregoing objections, Defendants will not produce documents in response to this request.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks documents related to rules violation report log no. FA-15-08-073, those documents are available in Plaintiff's central file and are thus equally available to Plaintiff.
In addition, the rules violation report is not relevant to the allegations in the SAC. As explained in the response to Plaintiff's request for document production, the rules violation report at issue occurred at Kern Valley State Prison in August 2015, nearly two years after the allegations in the SAC. The rules violation report, which involves an incident in which Plaintiff was fighting with another inmate, was not issued by any of the Defendants, nor were any of the Defendants involved in the underlying conduct or resolution of the rules violation report. (Declaration of J. Barba ("Barba Decl.") ¶ 4, Ex. A.)
Plaintiff argues, without evidence, that Defendants conspired with employees at Kern Valley State Prison to fabricate this rules violation report. (Pl.'s Mot. Compel at 5:14-24, ECF No. 88.) But nowhere in the SAC does Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants conspired to create or falsify this rules violation report. Nor could it—Plaintiff received the rules violation report for conduct that occurred in August 2015, three months after he filed the SAC on May 4, 2015, and more than a year after he filed the initial complaint in this case on July 24, 2014. The rules violation report and associated items are not relevant.
"Any and all investigative notes, affidavits, 602 administrative appeals, CDCR 22 request form or 6A 22 request form that are mentioned in Plaintiff's complaint or submitted by other inmates."
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague with respect to the phrase "mentioned in Plaintiff's complaint or submitted by other inmates," and overbroad in time and scope. The request fails to state with reasonable particularity the documents sought as required under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is not clear which documents are encompassed by the request for "investigative notes." And, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks copies of administrative appeals or CDCR 22 request forms that he himself submitted, he has equal access to those documents through a review of his central file.
Moreover, Plaintiff's claims are limited to events occurring in 2013 at SATF. All "investigative notes, affidavits," grievances, or request forms submitted by other inmates are not relevant to any claim or defense. Requiring Defendants to produce irrelevant documents submitted by other inmates would be unduly burdensome, considering the parties claims and defenses, and would not be proportional to the needs of this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). And responsive documents would include documents contained in other inmates' files, which are protected by the privacy rights of those inmates under section 3370 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. Also, such documents may include information protected by the doctor-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges.
Based on the foregoing objections, Defendants will not produce documents in response to this request.
First, as explained above, any administrative appeals or request forms submitted by Plaintiff would be located in Plaintiff's central file, and are thus equally accessible to Plaintiff.
Second, to the extent the request is asking for documents that are not equally available to Plaintiff, the request is overbroad. As phrased, the request asks for "[a]ny and all investigative notes, affidavits, 602 administrative appeals, CDCR 22 request form or 6A 22 request form that are . . . submitted by other inmates." It is not limited by time, nor is it even limited to specific inmates whom Plaintiff contends have relevant information related to his claims. To completely respond to the request, Defendants would be obligated to produce every administrative appeal and every form 22 request form submitted by any inmate, ever. Plaintiff's motion also appears to acknowledge that the relevance of this request is largely speculative. (Pl.'s Mot. to Compel at 7:13-14 ["Other inmates may have filed § 602, and or request form[s] claiming that the correctional officers/defendants were trying to force incompatible housing", ECF No. 88.) Thus, the request is not "proportional to the needs of the case." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1);
Third, Plaintiff's request includes documents concerning private information regarding other inmates. As the Court is aware, inmates routinely submit administrative appeals regarding private issues such as medical care, including psychiatric care, as well as the panoply of other issues, many of which an inmate might not wish other inmates to know about. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a) (an inmate may appeal any issue "having a material adverse effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare"). Even an appeal regarding a housing decision could reveal confidential information if, for example, an inmate is requesting a change in housing based on internal prison gang politicking or conflicts—the inmate might not want other inmates to know about his status (or lack thereof) in a particular prison gang or about problems that might put him in bad standing with a prison gang or other inmates. Indeed, one of the central thrusts of Plaintiff's motion and the SAC is that Plaintiff would prefer that other inmates not know about a rules violation report that exists in his central file. Notably, Plaintiff's motion does not address Defendants' confidentiality objection.
"Any and all inmate 602 administrative appeal filed by inmates alleging or challenging, forced marriage chrono and or housing with inmate that are considered incompatible cell mates."
Defendants object to this request on the grounds it is vague in its entirety and fails to state with reasonable particularity the documents sought as required under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, the request is overbroad as to time and subject matter. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks grievances that he has filed regarding a "forced marriage chrono" or housing with incompatible inmates, he has equal access to those documents through a review of his central file.
Grievances submitted by inmates other than Plaintiff regarding inmate housing or "marriage chronos" are not relevant to any claim or defense in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The request may call for grievances submitted at institutions where the Defendants in this action did not work, which are also irrelevant. And producing complaints by all inmates incarcerated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case. Responsive documents would include documents contained in other inmates' files, which are protected by the privacy rights of those inmates under section 3370 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.
Based on the foregoing objections, Defendants will not produce documents in response to this request.
Plaintiff mentions this request for production in the motion to compel, but does not explain "why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party's objections are not meritorious."
"A list of all in cell violence between cellies which occurred within the first 7 days of housing with new cell mates."
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it would require them to create a new document—a list regarding in-cell violence—which is not a proper request under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Also, the request is overbroad as to time and subject matter. All instances of in-cell violence occurring within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this matter, and producing documents involving other inmates is unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). And the request may encompass documents addressing violence perpetrated on other inmates and contained in other inmates' files, which are protected by the privacy rights of those inmates under section 3370 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.
Based on the foregoing objections, Defendants will not produce documents in response to this request.
As explained in Defendants' response to this request, no such list involving in cell violence exists. Plaintiff's motion argues that Defendants could "cross reference" documents showing inmate cell pairings with any rules violation reports showing in cell violence to create such a list, but "[r]ule 34 only requires a party to produce documents that already exist."
To the extent that Plaintiff now claims that he is merely seeking documents related to inmate cell pairings or rules violation reports, those documents are, as described above, either: (1) equally available to Plaintiff through a review of his central file; (2) not proportional to the needs of this case; or (3) confidential information about other inmates.
Request Numbers 6, 9, and 10 all request various administrative appeals/complaints directed towards Defendants. The Court will therefore rules on all three requests together.
"Any and all 602 administrative complaints against the named Defendant's in this complaint."
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and subject matter, and fails to state with reasonable particularity the documents sought as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. "All" complaints submitted against Defendants are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff has equal access to those administrative grievances that he submitted, and grievances submitted by other individuals are not relevant. And producing complaints submitted by other inmates is unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case. Also, responsive documents may include documents contained in other inmates' files, which are protected by the privacy rights of those inmates under section 3370 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.
Based on the foregoing objections, Defendants will not produce documents in response to this request.
"Any and all complaints (602 administrative appeals and or rights and responsibility complaints) against the Defendants for disposing of inmate appeals, legal documents, and or legal mail."
Defendants object to this request on the grounds it is overbroad with respect to time and subject matter. The documents requested are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this lawsuit, and the claims at issue in this lawsuit do not relate to the disposition of inmate appeals, legal documents, or legal mail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, the request is not proportional to the needs of the case because Plaintiff has equal access to, and is more familiar with, the grievances that he has filed. He is able to access those documents through a review of his central file.
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks grievances submitted by other inmates, they are not relevant to any claim or defense in this matter and the burden of responding to the request is not proportional to the needs of the case. And responsive documents would include documents contained in other inmates' files, which are protected by the privacy rights of those inmates under section 3370 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.
"Any and all documents or complaints against the Defendants for frustrating and or impeding inmate's i.e. (Investigative Employee) investigations or falsifying the reports."
Defendants object to this request on the grounds it is overbroad with respect to time and subject matter. Plaintiff fails to state with reasonable particularity the documents sought as required under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, the request is not proportional to the needs of the case because Plaintiff has equal access to, and is more familiar with, the grievances that he has filed. He is able to access those documents through a review of his central file.
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks grievances submitted by other inmates, they are not relevant to any claim or defense in this matter and the burden of responding to the request is not proportional to the needs of the case. And responsive documents would include documents contained in other inmates' files, which are protected by the privacy rights of those inmates under section 3370 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.
Based on the foregoing objections, Defendants will not produce documents in response to this request.
Similar to several of Plaintiff's other requests, these requests ask for documents that are: (1) equally available to Plaintiff through a review of his central file; (2) not proportional to the needs of this case; or (3) confidential information about other inmates.
In particular, Plaintiff's motion argues that Defendants' objections to these requests are improper because: (1) they do not explain why the request is overbroad; and (2) it is unfair to claim that the request is unduly burdensome merely because of Defendants' "inefficient filing system." (Pl.'s Mot. to Compel at 10:4-24, ECF No. 88.) The motion asserts that these arguments apply equally to Defendants' responses to requests for production numbers 4 through 10.
But the responses do explain why and how the requests are overbroad. They are overbroad with respect to time because the requests, as written, include all administrative complaints filed against any Defendant without regard to time period. They include time periods before the Defendants ever came into contact with Plaintiff and long after the allegations in the SAC, neither of which are relevant to Plaintiff's claims. Likewise, they are overbroad with respect to subject matter because they request all administrative complaints, without regard to the issues raised in those complaints. Even request numbers 9 and 10, which specify slightly narrower categories of complaints, ask for documents concerning unrelated claims of other inmates against Defendants, rather than Plaintiff's claims against Defendants.
For example, among Plaintiff's causes of action is a claim that Defendant Johnson fabricated a portion of a rules violation report. But request no. 10, as phrased, requests complaints, by any inmate, submitted at any time, against any of the nine Defendants related to "falsifying the reports." A complaint against, say, Defendant Alva, regarding the falsification of a report does not shed any light on whether Defendant Johnson might have falsified a report. Yet the request would require the production of such a document, if it exists. The argument adheres even more strongly to request numbers 6 and 9 because compliance with those requests would require the production of complaints concerning conduct that is wholly unrelated to the allegations in the SAC. Evidence that one of the Defendants interfered with an entirely unrelated inmate's legal mail, if it exists, for example, demonstrates nothing with respect to Plaintiff's claim that a Defendant housed him with an incompatible cellmate.
The request is also unduly burdensome because administrative appeals are maintained in the central file of the inmate who filed the appeal. There is no way to search for all inmate appeals identifying a particular individual or about a particular topic. Thus, full compliance with the requests would require a search of the central file for every inmate who has come into contact with any of the Defendants in this action. Even identifying such inmates would place an undue burden on Defendants. (Barba Decl. ¶ 5.)
Nor is there an argument that the requested documents are relevant. As noted above, the requests encompass documents that are entirely unrelated to Plaintiff's claims. None of Plaintiff's claims revolve around the disposal of legal mail, documents, or inmate appeals. Request number 6 even requests all administrative complaints filed against any of the Defendants for any reason.
The motion asserts that Plaintiff wants these documents so that he can establish "Defendants' characters as `dirty correctional officers.'" (Pl.'s Mot. to Compel at 11:4-6, ECF No. 88.) Defendants' characters are not at issue in this case, however, and the request appears to be seeking inadmissible character evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 404(a);
Plaintiff's motion also contends that these documents are relevant because they go to Defendants' credibility by showing that they have committed past acts of moral turpitude.
Plaintiff's motion also contends that these documents are relevant because they go to Defendants' credibility by showing that they have committed past acts of moral turpitude. (Pl.'s Mot. to Compel at 12:14-22 (citing
Nor does it make sense to say that evidence of Defendants' purported, and unrelated, misconduct towards other inmates is relevant to prove motive, intent, opportunity, habit, or routine. The subject of the administrative appeals/complaints requested is entirely different than the misconduct Plaintiff's claims allege. Generally, evidence of prior bad acts must "be similar to the offense charged," and there "must be sufficient proof for the jury to find that the defendant committed the other act" to be admissible.
Given the lack of relevance, the requests are overbroad, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the documents are proportional to the needs of this case.
"Any and all documents filed on the defendants for falsifying documents, distributing inmates files or documents to other inmates or for facilitating gladiator fights between inmates or [e]xcessive force violations."
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague with regard to the phrase "filed on defendants," compound, and fails to state with reasonable particularity the documents sought as required under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The request is overbroad in time and scope. Also, the request is not proportional to the needs of the case because Plaintiff has equal access to, and is more familiar with, the grievances that he has filed. He is able to access those documents through a review of his central file.
To the extent that the request seeks documents submitted by other inmates, those documents are not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and producing complaints by other inmates is unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Responsive documents may include documents contained in other inmates' files, which are protected by the privacy rights of those inmates under section 3370 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks other lawsuits against Defendants, these documents are public and equally available to Plaintiff.
Based on the foregoing objections, Defendants will not produce documents in response to this request.
Like request for production number 4, Plaintiff mentions this request in the motion, but does not provide any argument "why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party's objections are not meritorious."
In addition, the request does not make sense; it is unclear what "documents filed on defendants" refers. If the phrase means documents that have been filed in court, the documents are publicly available. If the phrase means administrative appeals that have been submitted by Plaintiff, the documents are equally available to Plaintiff through a review of his central file. If the phrase means administrative appeals that have been submitted by other inmates, the request calls for the production of third party confidential information without any relevant purpose.
In any case, the request does not "describe with reasonable particularity" the documents requested, as required by Rule 34(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because it does not give Defendants "reasonable notice of what is called for and what is not."
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed on March 2, 2018, is DENIED.
