(PC) Gamez v. Gonzalez, et al., No. 1:2008cv01113 - Document 201 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents Responsive to First Set of Document Requests 189 ; ORDER REQUIRING Production By All Defendants of Document Requests 1-6 Within Thirty Days of This Order; or Submission for In Camera Review, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/9/15. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO FIRST SET OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS (Doc. 189.) Plaintiff, 13 14 1:08-cv-01113-LJO-EPG-PC SERGIO ALEJANDRO GAMEZ, vs. F. GONZALEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION BY ALL DEFENDANTS OF DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS 1-6 WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THIS ORDER; or SUBMISSION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW 16 17 18 19 20 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Sergio Alejandro Gamez (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 23 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 24 August 1, 2008. (Doc. 1.) 25 The Ninth Circuit held that “there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the 26 evidence used by defendants in support of Gamez s 2010 re-validation as a gang associate, a 27 report of an interview with a confidential informant, had „sufficient indicia of reliability, 28 through corroboration or other means to meet the „some evidence standard as required to 1 1 satisfy due process.” (Doc. 116 at 2; Gamez v. Gonzales et al., 481 Fed.Appx. 310, 311 (9th 2 Cir. 2012). 3 defendants on Gamez s due process claims relating to his re-validation as a prison gang 4 associate in 2010, and remanded for further proceedings. It also vacated the dismissal of 5 Gamez s retaliation claim associated with the 2010 re-validation. Accordingly, the Court vacated the district court s summary judgment for 6 This case now proceeds with the Fourth Amended Complaint, filed on November 8, 7 2013, on Plaintiff s claims for due process violations concerning his 2010 and 2012 gang re- 8 validations, and related retaliation claims, against defendants Holland, Gonzalez, Tyree, 9 Gentry, Adame, and Jakabosky. (Doc. 147.) 10 On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the production of documents by 11 defendants Holland, Tyree, and Adame. (Doc. 189.) On April 16, 2015, defendants Holland, 12 Tyree, and Adame filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 192.) On April 16, 2015, Plaintiff 13 filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. 193.) Plaintiff s motion to compel is now before the 14 Court. 15 II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS 16 Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery 17 regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. 18 Civ. P. 26(b). “Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears 19 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. A party may 20 propound requests for production of documents that are within the scope of Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). 22 Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may 23 move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. 24 P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or 25 incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have 26 „broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule 27 of Civil Procedure 16. ” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 28 Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). 2 1 Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigant; therefore, to the extent possible, the 2 Court endeavors to resolve Plaintiff s motion to compel on its merits. Hunt, 672 F.3d at 616; 3 Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. 4 Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002.) 5 III. 6 7 8 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff moves to compel responses to his First Set of Requests for Production, dated March 19, 2015. There are six document requests: REQUEST NO. 1: Any and all documents that refer or relate to policies, procedures, and practices in effect in/or October 2007, to the present date which relate to the 180 days reviews of prisoners indeterminate housing reviews. REQUEST NO. 2: All relevant sections from 2007, to 2013, from the current California Department of Corrections classification manual that details the criteria for allowing a gang member or associate to be housed in the general population. REQUEST NO. 3: All documents reviewed in conjunction with every 180 days „SHU review of Plaintiff by the aforementioned Defendants from 2006, to 2013, including, but not limited to CDC 128-B Reports, CDC 128-G Reports, CDC 812-A Reports. REQUEST NO. 4: Any and all documents that provide the criteria used by the institutional classification committee to determine when a validated prison gang member or associate should be released to the general prison population pursuant to the wording of the governing California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3378(d). REQUEST NO. 5: Any and all reports and photos of the 2010 and 2012, validation requests that were submitted to the Office of Correctional Safety (OCS) or SSU for review. REQUEST NO. 6: A complete listing of all persons or agencies who were provided a copy of the documents relative to Plaintiff of validation request and/or validation. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff argues that these documents are necessary to reveal what procedures were in 28 place between 2010 and 2012, and for Plaintiff to be able to exhibit that Defendants violated 3 1 those procedures and Plaintiff s due process rights. Plaintiff also states that he is willing to 2 narrow his requests to seek only documents dated or in place as of 2010-2012. 3 Defendants fail to address any of the specific requests in their opposition. Instead, 4 Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of relevance. Defendants also state 5 generally that “each of the contested document requests are overly broad, impose undue 6 burdens on Defendants, and, in many cases, implicate the privacy rights of third parties and 7 would pose a security risk to those involved in providing the information and compromise the 8 system for rooting out gang activity.” (Doc. 192 at 3:2-5.) 9 At the outset, this Court is not required to give boilerplate objections any weight. See 10 Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 11 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We hold that boilerplate objections or blanket refusals inserted into a response 12 to a Rule 34 request for production of documents are insufficient to assert a privilege.”); A. 13 Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (“As an initial matter, 14 general or boilerplate objections such as “overly burdensome and harassing” are improper— 15 especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections. 16 Similarly, boilerplate relevancy objections, without setting forth any explanation or argument 17 why the requested documents are not relevant, are improper.”) (internal citations omitted). 18 This is a case about due process. Plaintiff is entitled to learn what process was in place 19 at the time of his revalidation proceedings. Defendants are the ones who were trained under 20 such processes and are in the best position to know which were in effect and have the best 21 access to them. Therefore, the Court orders that Defendants must produce all documents 22 responsive to Requests 1, 2, and 4, subject to the in camera procedures discussed below. 23 Plaintiff is also entitled to all of the evidence that was presented and evaluated 24 regarding his own validation proceedings, to determine if Defendants followed their own 25 procedures. While this is not the critical inquiry, it is relevant to the question of whether 26 Defendants provided Plaintiff with constitutional due process. Thus, the Court orders that 27 Defendants must produce all documents responsive to Request 3 and 5, subject to the in camera 28 procedures discussed below. 4 1 Request number 6 concerns what other agencies were provided documents related to 2 Plaintiff s validation and/or revalidation. While not strictly relevant to Plaintiffs claims, this 3 request is directed to verifying that Defendants have produced all relevant documents and could 4 provide an alternative way to search for additional documents. The Court also grants Plaintiff s 5 motion to compel as to Request 6. 6 As to many of these document requests, Defendants state that production of these 7 documents could pose security risks and compromise the system of rooting out gang activity. 8 The Court does not understand how this can be true of all of the documents contained within, 9 but the Court is also mindful of the importance of security in prison. To be clear, this order 10 requires production of the procedures in place for determining validation of gang activity, and 11 substantive information only as to this Plaintiff. Plaintiff is not requesting information about 12 any other prisoner or gang. Moreover, the Plaintiff is entitled to understand the procedures that 13 were supposed to be followed and how, if at all, they were followed in his own case. 14 Because of Defendants objections based on security in this context, however, the Court 15 will permit Defendants to submit documents in camera, for the Court s review, any documents 16 or portions of documents that Defendants believe should be exempt from this order based on a 17 concern about security or an issue of privilege. Defendants should submit the documents with 18 a full explanation of the documents or portions or documents they believe fall within this 19 restriction and a full explanation with any legal citations explaining their position. 20 IV. CONCLUSION 21 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff s motion to compel Document Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 from his First 23 Request for Production of Documents dated March 19, 2015 is granted. Defendants 24 Holland, Tyree, and Adame are ordered to produce all requested documents within 25 their possession, custody and control within thirty days of this order; 26 2. If Defendants believe that production of any such documents or portions of 27 documents pose a security threat or invade a privilege, they should submit those 28 /// 5 1 documents to the Court in camera with a full explanation within thirty days of this 2 order. 3 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 9, 2015 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
