(PC) Jeffery v. Bennge et al, No. 1:2006cv00752 - Document 90 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 81 MOTION to COMPEL and for Sanctions, and Amending Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 02/04/2010. Discovery due by 6/17/2010; Pretrial Dispositive Motions due by 9/17/2010. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Jeffery v. Bennge et al Doc. 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DONALD JEFFERY, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00752-SMS PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS, AND AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER v. M. T. A. BENNGE, et al., 13 (Doc. 81) Defendants. Amended Discovery Deadline: 06/17/2010 14 Amended Pretrial Dispositive Motion Deadline: 09/17/2010 15 / 16 Order on Motion to Compel 17 I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 18 This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Donald Jeffery, 19 a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed this action on June 15, 2006, 20 and it is proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against Defendants Cantu and Knight 21 for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On October 13, 2009, Plaintiff 22 filed a motion seeking to compel responses to his requests for the production of documents, and for 23 sanctions. Defendants filed an opposition on October 28, 2009, and Plaintiff filed a reply on 24 November 16, 2009. 25 The discovery phase of this litigation commenced on October 2, 2008. (Doc. 39.) Therefore, 26 any discovery requests served prior to that date are invalid and the Court declines to further address 27 Plaintiff’s complaints that his discovery requests served prior to October 2, 2008, received no 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 response. (Doc. 81, Motion to Compel, Ex. G.) Properly at issue are Plaintiff’s requests for the 2 production of documents, sets one and two, dated September 1, 2009, and September 8, 2009. (Id., 3 Exs. C & D, court record pp. 26-28, 34-37.) 4 A. 5 “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 6 party’s claim or defense . . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the 7 discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 26(b)(1). For document production requests, responding parties must produce documents 9 which are in their “possession, custody or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Standard 10 If Defendants object to one of Plaintiff’s discovery requests, it is Plaintiff’s burden on his 11 motion to compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. Ordinarily, Plaintiff must inform 12 the Court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed 13 response, inform the Court why the information sought is relevant and why Defendants’ objections 14 are not justified. 15 B. 16 POD 1: Plaintiff seeks all records and documents generated in connection with the subject 17 18 19 Request for Production of Documents, Set One matter of this lawsuit from December 3, 2003, to present. Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This request is exceedingly overbroad and vague, and is not drafted to seek only relevant information. 20 POD 2: Plaintiff seeks a copy of his third amended complaint and Defendants’ answer. 21 Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff is responsible for keeping copies 22 of documents filed in this action, and has made no showing that would justify ordering Defendants 23 to provide copies of filings in this action. 24 POD 3: Plaintiff seeks copies of all inmate appeals, citizens’ complaints, and lawsuits filed 25 by inmates in which assaults or batteries by Defendants Knight and Cantu, and Sergeant Martinez 26 are alleged, and Plaintiff seeks the locations of all such complaining inmates and witnesses. 27 Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This request is exceedingly overbroad. It 28 is not limited by time period or to factual situations similar to that alleged by Plaintiff. Further, 2 1 Plaintiff has made no showing of relevancy or offer of proof as to how this information would be 2 used. Finally, Plaintiff is entitled to seek relevant, discoverable documents in existence. Under no 3 circumstance may Plaintiff seek to have Defendants create documents for him, such as his request 4 for a list of witness locations. 5 PODs 4, 5, and 8: Plaintiff seeks a variety of personal information on Edger, Shaw, and the 6 individuals listed on his witness list (correct spelling of names, status and standing with CDCR for 7 Edger and Shaw, current and/or last known addresses, telephone numbers, and other information). 8 (Doc. 81, Motion to Compel, court record p. 30.) 9 Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. As to Edger and Shaw, this action is not 10 proceeding on any claims against Edger or Shaw, and Plaintiff has not made any showing of 11 relevance as to this information. With respect to the other witnesses, Plaintiff must show relevance, 12 which he has not done, and he is not seeking the production of any specific documents. Rather, 13 Plaintiff is seeking information in response to his questions, an inquiry not appropriately made in 14 a document production request. Defendants may not be compelled to conduct an investigation on 15 Plaintiff’s behalf and provide him with information not already set forth in a specific, existing 16 document. 17 POD 6: Plaintiff seeks all medical reports and records, including but not limited to x-rays 18 and prescriptions, relating to injuries to Defendant Knight from the date of the incident (December 19 4, 2003) to present. 20 Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff’s request for Defendant’s medical 21 records in total for the past five years is overly broad and not limited to obtaining information 22 relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. 23 POD 7: Plaintiff seeks a list/cell roster showing the full names, CDCR numbers, and cells 24 of all inmates housed at CSATF, D Facility, Building 3, on the date of the incident (December 4, 25 2003), and the current locations and full contact information for the inmates. 26 Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff’s request must be narrowed to 27 documents which exist. Given Plaintiff’s familiarity with prison procedures, he should be aware of 28 what types of movement sheets or log books are kept which document inmates’ names and locations 3 1 for a particular building on a given date. Plaintiff should rephrase his request to net such 2 information. Further, and again, Plaintiff may only seek documents which exist. It is highly unlikely 3 that there is a responsive document setting forth the names of those inmates housed in Plaintiff’s 4 building on December 4, 2003, but listing their current addresses. If no such document exists, 5 Defendants may not be compelled to produce it. 6 POD 9: Plaintiff seeks all inmate appeals and complaints against former Defendant Edger. 7 Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff is not proceeding in this action 8 9 10 11 against Edger, and had made no showing that this information is relevant. C. Request for Production of Documents, Set Two POD 1: Plaintiff seeks copies of all CDCR policies and procedures in effect on December 5, 2003, which related to the evaluation and care of CCCMS inmates who were suicidal. 12 Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This action is not proceeding on a claim 13 arising from Plaintiff’s medical or mental health care, and Plaintiff has made no showing that this 14 information is relevant. 15 POD 2: Plaintiff seeks copies of all CDCR policies and procedures in effect on December 16 5, 2003, which were applicable to medical and custody staff and which related to the handling of 17 situations in which an inmate stated he was suicidal or planned to harm himself, including training 18 received. 19 Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This action is not proceeding on a claim 20 arising from Plaintiff’s medical or mental health care, and Plaintiff has made no showing that this 21 information is relevant. 22 POD 3: Copies of lawsuits relating to mental health care, including court orders directing 23 CDCR and the Governor to fix or improve the mental health care delivery system in CDCR prisons. 24 Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This action is not proceeding on a claim 25 arising from Plaintiff’s medical or mental health care, and Plaintiff has made no showing that this 26 information is relevant. 27 POD 4: Copies of documents and books relating to CDCR institutional staff training 28 provided to custody and medical staff at CSTAF on the mental health care of inmates, including 4 1 training provided to Bennge, Shaw, and Martinez from January 2003 to present. 2 Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This action is not proceeding on a claim 3 arising from Plaintiff’s medical or mental health care, and Plaintiff has made no showing that this 4 information is relevant. 5 6 POD 5: Copies of Plaintiff’s mental health evaluations conducted after the incident, including doctor’s and psychiatrist’s reports. 7 Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This action is not proceeding on a claim 8 arising from Plaintiff’s medical or mental health care, and Plaintiff has made no showing that this 9 information is relevant. 10 III. Conclusion and Order 11 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein. In light 12 of the denial of the motion, there is no basis for the imposition of sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. The 13 Court sua sponte extends the deadlines for the completion of all discovery and for filing pretrial 14 dispositive motions to allow Plaintiff to conduct one further round of discovery in light of the 15 information and admonitions set forth in this order. 16 The discovery deadline shall be extended to June 17, 2010, which is more than adequate to 17 allow Plaintiff additional time to draft new discovery requests and file a motion to compel if 18 necessary. Plaintiff is cautioned that Defendants have forty-five days within which to respond to a 19 properly served discovery request. Therefore, Plaintiff must draft and serve his discovery requests 20 sufficiently in advance of June 17, 2010, to ensure that Defendants have forty-five days to respond 21 and Plaintiff has time to file a motion to compel, if necessary. 22 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel and for sanctions, filed October 13, 2009, is DENIED; 24 2. The deadline for the completion of all discovery, including filing motions to compel, 25 is extended to June 17, 2010; and 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 5 1 3. 2 The deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is extended to September 17, 2010. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: icido3 February 4, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
