(PC) Jacobs v. Scribner, et al, No. 1:2006cv01280 - Document 95 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Plaintiff's 45 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission and Denying Sanctions signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/27/2009. (Bradley, A)

Download PDF

(PC) Jacobs v. Scribner, et al Doc. 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GEORGE E. JACOBS IV, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01280-AWI-GSA PC Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND DENYING SANCTIONS v. ALLEN K. SCRIBNER, et al., Defendants. (Doc. 45) 14 / 15 16 17 Order on Motion to Compel Responses and to Deem Requests Admitted and for Sanctions Plaintiff George E. Jacobs IV (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law. This 19 action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed September 18, 2006, against Defendants 20 Martinez, German, and Northcutt for use of excessive physical force, assault and battery, and 21 intentional infliction of emotional distress; and against Defendant Martinez for acting with 22 deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. The excessive force claim, which is 23 also brought against two Doe defendants, allegedly occurred during the escort of Plaintiff from 24 the Acute Care Hospital to the Security Housing Unit on January 26, 2005. The medical care 25 claim against Defendant Martinez arises from Defendant’s alleged failure to obtain medical care 26 for Plaintiff on January 27, 2005, and the medical care claims against Does 3, 4, and 6-10 arise 27 from the failure to obtain medical care for Plaintiff between January 27, 2005, and February 3, 28 2005. Plaintiff alleges that he was ultimately transported to an outside hospital for emergency 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 medical care on February 2, 2005, and lost the sight in one eye as a result of his injuries. 2 I. 3 Motion to Compel Requests for Admission On March 20, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his requests 4 for admission. (Doc. 45.) Defendants filed an opposition on April 3, 2008, and Plaintiff filed a 5 reply on April 23, 2008. (Docs. 47, 52.) Plaintiff propounded almost three-hundred requests for 6 admission, the majority of which are at issue in his motion to compel.1 7 Facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions are subject to requests for admission. 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1)(A). “If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or 9 state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly 10 respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an 11 answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or 12 deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for 13 failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the 14 information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.” Fed. R. 15 Civ. P. 36(a)(4). “The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated. A party must not object 16 solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5). 17 18 A. Defendant Martinez’s Responses to Requests for Admission 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005 you were the only sergeant apart [sic] of the escort team.” 20 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and 21 ambiguous. Without waiving objections and assuming Plaintiff is referring to the escort of 22 Plaintiff to the Security Housing Unit on January 26, 2005, after a reasonable inquiry, Defendant 23 is unable to admit or deny the request as he does not recall. Defendant’s objections are 24 overruled. Defendant is reminded that an inquiry of solely one’s own memory is insufficient 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff did not move to compel further responses to all of the Requests for Admissions he propounded. Further in his Reply, Plaintiff concedes that Defendants answered a number of requests such that no further responses need be compelled -- to wit Plaintiff concedes Defendant Martinez answered requests 5, 31, and 51; Defendant Northcutt answered requests 3, 8, 11, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 55, 61, 62, 66, 67, 82, and 83; and Defendant German answered requests 12 and 60. (Doc. 52, Reply.) These requests will not be addressed herein. 2 1 basis upon which to claim an inability to admit or deny a request for admission; rather, a 2 responding party must state “that it has made a reasonable inquiry and that the information it 3 knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny the request for 4 admission.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4) (emphasis added); see Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. 5 Co. 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) ref. City of Rome v. United States, 450 F.Supp. 378, 6 383-84 (D.D.C.1978), aff’d, 446 U.S. 156 (1980); Alexander v. Rizzo, 52 F.R.D. 235, 236 (E.D. 7 Pa.1971). Thus, Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely 8 on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, 9 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable 10 information and provide an amended answer to this request. 11 12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005, Plaintiff was placed in his knees in front of cell #43, door area.” 13 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and 14 ambiguous. Without waiving objections and assuming Plaintiff is referring to the escort of 15 Plaintiff to the Security Housing Unit on January 26, 2005, after a reasonable inquiry, Defendant 16 is unable to admit or deny the request as he does not recall. Defendant’s objections are 17 overruled. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on 18 his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 19 motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information 20 and provide an amended answer to this request. 21 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff did not attempt to assault you at anytime, on January 26, 2005. Assault by this term means that which is defined in section 240 of the California Penal Code. (to include section 4500 of the Penal Code).” 24 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and 25 ambiguous. Without waiving objections and assuming Plaintiff is referring to the escort of 26 Plaintiff to the Security Housing Unit on January 26, 2005, Defendant is unable to recall whether 27 Plaintiff attempted to assault Defendant. After reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit 28 or deny the request. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s response that he is 22 3 1 unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is 3 required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this 4 request. 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff did not attempt to batter you at any time on January 26, 2005. Battery by this term means that which is defined in section 242 of the California Penal Code (to include section 4501.5.).” 6 7 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and 8 ambiguous. Without waiving objections and assuming Plaintiff is referring to the escort of 9 Plaintiff to the Security Housing Unit on January 26, 2005, Defendant is unable to recall whether 10 Plaintiff attempted to batter Defendant. After reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or 11 deny the request. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s response that he is unable 12 to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. 13 R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required 14 to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 15 16 17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 “Admit or deny Plaintiff was placed in a spit mask, leg irons, handcuffs, and the lanyard device with the lock and triangle bar attached, prior to being escorted to 4A Yard building two (2), cell #43 of two right side.” 18 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and 19 ambiguous. Without waiving objections and assuming Plaintiff is referring to the escort of 20 Plaintiff to the Security Housing Unit on January 26, 2005, Defendant does not recall all of the 21 restraints placed on Plaintiff, but admits that it is customary to place an inmate in leg and arm 22 restraints when escorting them to the Security Housing Unit. Plaintiff’s response appears to be 23 based solely on his lack of recollection, which does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4), and 24 does not address whether he was placed in a spit mask and/or lanyard. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 25 motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information 26 and provide an amended answer to this request. 27 /// 28 4 1 2 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff was escorted as such any time he was removed from his cell for any reason.” 3 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and 4 ambiguous. Defendants objections are sustained. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13 “Admit or deny that you placed Plaintiff in cell #43 on January 26, 2005, with no mattress, linen, clothes, toliet [sic] paper or state supplies.” 6 7 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and 8 ambiguous. Without waiving objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit 9 or deny the request as he does not recall Plaintiff’s personal items on January 26, 2005. 10 Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny 11 this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check 13 all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 14 15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14 “Admit or deny that cell #43 in building two (2) right side is not a management cell.” 16 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without 17 waiving objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request 18 because he does not recall whether the specified cell was placed on Management Control Status 19 on the specified date. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s response that he is 20 unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is 22 required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this 23 request. 24 25 26 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff remained with a mattress, linen, blankets, clothes, toliet [sic] paper or state supplies until February 8, 2005 where doing [sic] I.C.C. Committee the Assistant Warden directed you to provide these items to Plaintiff.” 27 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and 28 5 1 ambiguous. Without waiving objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit 2 or deny the request as he does not recall Plaintiff’s personal items during the specified time 3 period. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or 4 deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check 6 all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 7 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17 “Admit or deny that on or around January 27, 28th 2005 Plaintiff directly told you he had an medical emergency.” 9 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and 10 ambiguous. Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request as he 11 does not recall, however, Defendant denies that Plaintiff told him about an emergency on January 12 28, 2005, as that was Defendant’s regular day off. Defendant’s objections are overruled. 13 Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request as to the events on January 14 27th based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily 16 obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 17 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18 “Admit or deny that on or around January 27, 28th 2005 you approached Plaintiff cell #43 during third watch shift.” 19 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and 20 ambiguous. Without waiving objections, Defendant denies the request as to January 28, 2005, 21 because that was Defendant’s regular day off. Defendant’s objections are overruled. 22 Defendant’s response does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4) as he fails to admit, deny, or 23 state an inability to do so as to the request for admission of activity on or around January 27, 24 2005. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all 25 readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 26 27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff did not have a cell mate at any time he was housed in 4A-building two (2) right cell #43.” 28 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and the 6 1 request asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. 2 Defendant’s objections are overruled. Further, stating that a request asked Defendant to admit or 3 deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection as Plaintiff is 4 entitled to obtain discovery on any nonprivileged matter which need not be admissible at the trial 5 if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s 6 motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information 7 and provide an amended answer to this request. 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff did not have a cell mate when you picked him up from the (ACH) unit on January 26, 2005.” 9 10 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and the 11 request asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. 12 Defendants objections are overruled. Further, stating that a request asked Defendant to admit or 13 deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection as Plaintiff is 14 entitled to obtain discovery on any nonprivileged matter which need not be admissible at the trial 15 if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s 16 motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information 17 and provide an amended answer to this request. 18 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24 “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005, as a result of the attack, Plaintiff was injured resulting in severe emotional distress.” 20 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and is not a 21 plain statement of fact. Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the 22 request because he is unaware of any attack on Plaintiff on January 26, 2005. Defendant’s 23 objections are sustained. Further, Plaintiff has not shown any basis upon which Defendant would 24 be able and/or qualified to have ascertained whether Plaintiff suffered from sever emotional 25 distress. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 26 27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff had no pre-existing injuries to any of the area of his body in controversy in this lawsuit at the time.” 28 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 7 1 Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny Plaintiff’s request, but vaguely 2 recalls that Plaintiff had some red irritation to area around his eyes. Defendant’s objections are 3 sustained. Further, Plaintiff has not shown any basis upon which Defendant would be able 4 and/or qualified to have ascertained whether Plaintiff suffered from any pre-existing injuries. 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 6 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff complied with all orders on January 26, 2005. 8 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 9 Defendant’s objections are sustained. Without waiving objections and assuming Plaintiff is 10 referring to the escort of Plaintiff to the Security Housing Unit on January 26, 2005, Defendant is 11 unable to specifically admit or deny the request, but Defendant does not recall Plaintiff failing to 12 comply with orders on January 26, 2005. Plaintiff fails to show any deficiency in this response. 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 14 15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30 “Admit or deny that you have moved Plaintiff back and forth to your building housing unit 4 times in the past year.” 16 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 17 Defendant’s objections are sustained. Further, this request is irrelevant as it does not appear that 18 a response to this request is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s 19 motion to compel is denied. 20 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32 “Admit or deny that you have sprayed Plaintiff with O.C. pepper spray since the filing of this complaint.” 22 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and the 23 request asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. 24 Defendant’s objections are overruled. However, this request does not appear reasonably 25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to 26 compel is denied. 27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33 “Admit or deny that this situation took place on July 30, 2007 while Plaintiff was housed in your unit for the fourth time, 28 8 1 in C-Section 4A-2Right cell #47.” 2 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and the 3 request asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. 4 Defendant’s objection that this request is vague and ambiguous is sustained. Whether it seeks a 5 material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection. However, this request does not appear 6 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 7 motion to compel is denied. 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34 “Admit or deny that a week prior to that incident on July 30, 2007, you came in contact with Plaintiff on July 24, 2007 and threatened to spray Plaintiff.” 9 10 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and the 11 request asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. 12 Defendant’s objection that this request is vague and ambiguous is sustained. Whether it seeks a 13 material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection. However, this request does not appear 14 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 15 motion to compel is denied. 16 17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35 “Admit or deny that you have had citizen’s complaints filed against you for excessive use of force/employee misconduct.” 18 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and the 19 request asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. 20 Defendants objections are overruled. Further, stating that a request asked Defendant to admit or 21 deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection as Plaintiff is 22 entitled to obtain discovery on any nonprivileged matter which need not be admissible at the trial 23 if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s 24 motion to compel is granted, with the limitation that Defendant must provide a response to this 25 request only for the time frame of January 1, 2002 to the date of this order. Defendant is required 26 to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36 “Admit or deny that you have been investigated in the past for 9 1 improper and/or misconduct, toward inmates housed in the Corcoran security housing unit.” 2 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and the 3 request asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. 4 Defendants objections are overruled. Further, stating that a request asked Defendant to admit or 5 deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection as Plaintiff is 6 entitled to obtain discovery on any non-privileged matter which need not be admissible at the 7 trial if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted, with the limitation that Defendant must provide a 9 response to this request only for the time frame of January 1, 2002 to the date of this order. 10 Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer 11 to this request. 12 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37 “Admit or deny that you have had previous citizen complaints/602's filed against you for retaliatory actions.” 14 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and asks 15 Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. Defendant’s 16 objections that this request is vague and ambiguous is overruled. Whether a request seeks a 17 material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection. However, this request does not appear 18 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as there are no claims of 19 retaliation in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 20 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38 “Admit that you were aware Plaintiff was and still is a participant in the mental health program.” 22 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 23 Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does 24 not know Plaintiff’s mental health status now and does not know if Plaintiff’s mental health 25 status has ever been made known to him. Defendant’s objections are overruled. However, while 26 responding solely from one’s own memory to a request for admission is ordinarily insufficient, 27 this request seeks an admission or denial as to Defendant’s own knowledge. Defendant 28 10 1 responded that he does not recall, which, in this situation is sufficient. Plaintiff’s motion to 2 compel is denied. 3 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39 “Admit or deny that you have and had access to all prisoner files housed in your unit, at your disposal.” 5 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to 6 “all prisoner files.” Defendant’s objection is overruled. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to 7 compel is granted with the limitation that Defendant must provide a response to this request only 8 for the time frame of October 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005. 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42 “Admit or deny that Prisoner James L. Thompson C 89908 filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against you, alleging you, D. Morales, and B. David, J. Masiel and F. Reynoso brutally attacked him and beat him while in mechanical restraints resulting in him receiving 13 stitches in his head, two black eyes and suffering great bodily injuries. ” 10 11 12 13 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43 “Admit or deny that you and your co-defendants D. Morales, and B. David et al,. filed (RUR) CDC-115 and CDC 837 incident reports of this brutal assault, attack, and beating of Prisoner James L. Thompson in June 2003.” 15 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44 “Admit or deny that James L. Thompson filed an appeal 602citizen complaint against you on this matter.” 17 18 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45 “Admit or deny that Prisoner Parker P-13216 was also brutally attacked and beaten by you D. Morales, B. David et al., while he was in mechanical restraints resulting in him receiving injuries and suffering great bodily injury. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46 “Admit or deny that you and your co-defendants D. Morales and B. David et al, filed (RUR) CDC 115 and CDC 837 incident reports of this brutal assault, attack and beating of Prisoner Parker in May 2006.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: “Admit or deny that Prisoner Kevin L. Parker E92954 was also brutally attacked and beaten by you D. Morales, and B. David et al., while he was in mechanical restraints resulting in him receiving injuries and suffering great bodily injury. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: “Admit or deny that you and your co-defendants D. Morales and B. David et al., filed (RUR) CDC 115 and CDC 837 incident reports of this brutal assault, attack and beating of Prisoner Kevin L. Havery in May/June 2006.” 11 1 Ruling: Defendant objects to the requests 42-48 on the grounds that they are compound, vague 2 and ambiguous and ask Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this 3 lawsuit. Defendant’s objection that these requests are vague and ambiguous is sustained. 4 Whether a request for admission seeks a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection. 5 However, these requests seek information regarding claims of another prisoner which do not 6 appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Plaintiff 7 has propounded alternative forms of discovery regarding these issues, which are more likely to 8 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than requests for admissions. Accordingly, 9 Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests 42-48 is denied. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: “Admit or deny that were in possession and/or aware the MEMO concerning Plaintiffs [sic] alleged prior acts of assault with a weapon, dated January 26, 2005.” Ruling: Defendant’s objections to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and ambiguous are overruled. Plaintiff is sufficiently clear in identifying the memo and Defendant must answer. Further, Defendant’s objection that this request is not a plain statement of fact is not a proper basis for objection. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: “Admit or deny that you read this memo prior to escorting Plaintiff to building two (2) security housing unit.” Ruling: Defendant’s objections to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and ambiguous are overruled. Defendant’s objection that this request is not a plain statement of fact is not a proper basis for objection. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: “Admit or deny that your employers and/or superiors have been aware of the length of time you have been assigned to the 4A 2 building security housing unit at Corcoran State Prison.” 24 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, calls for 25 speculation, vague and ambiguous and is not a plain statement of fact. Defendant’s objection 26 that this request calls for speculation is sustained. Defendant further objects on the grounds that 27 the request asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. 28 Whether a request for admission seeks a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection. 22 12 1 However, this request seeks information as to Defendant’s superiors’ knowledge which does not 2 appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as there are no 3 claims against Defendant’s superiors in this action. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: “Admit or deny that your employers and/or superiors have been aware of your actions, since you have been assigned to the 4A 2 building security housing unit at Corcoran State Prison.” 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, calls for speculation, vague and ambiguous and is not a plain statement of fact. Defendant’s objection that this request calls for speculation is sustained. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the request asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. Whether a request for admission seeks a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection. However, this request seeks information as to Defendant’s superiors’ knowledge which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as there are no claims against Defendant’s superiors in this action. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: “Admit or deny that during the weekly I.C.C. Committee hearing held in 4A 2 building unit you are present and apart [sic] of the Committee board/hearing.” 17 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and 18 ambiguous, is not a plain statement of fact, and requests Defendant to admit or deny a statement 19 that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Whether a 20 request for admission seeks a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection. Plaintiff’s 21 motion to compel is granted with the limitation that Defendant must provide a response to this 22 request only for the time frame of December 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005. 23 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: “Admit or deny that during these weekly I.C.C Committee hearings you have communication with the 4A yard facility captain, Assistant Warden, Chief Deputy Warden, and (S.H.U.) Warden. Be specific.” 26 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and 27 ambiguous, is not a plain statement of fact, and requests Defendant to admit or deny a statement 28 that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. Defendant’s objections are overruled – other than that 15 24 13 1 the phrase “Be specific” is vague and ambiguous. Whether a request for admission seeks a 2 material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted, 3 with the limitation that Defendant must provide a response to this request only for the time frame 4 of December 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005. 5 6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57: “Admit or deny that you are authorized a “Spit Mask” to be placed over Plaintiff’s face/head, on January 26, 2005.” 7 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without 8 waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request as he does not recall 9 whether he ordered that Plaintiff wear a spit mask on January 26, 2005. Defendant’s objections 10 are overruled. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely 11 on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, 12 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable 13 information and provide an amended answer to this request. 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58: “Admit or deny that you are presently being sued by other inmates who were housed in the same unit as you, 4A - 2 building (S.H.U.).” 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and is not a plain statement of fact. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the request asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. lawsuit. Defendant’s objection that these requests are vague and ambiguous is overruled. Whether a request for admission seeks a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection. However, this request seeks information regarding claims that other prisoners might have against Defendant which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Plaintiff has propounded alternative forms of discovery regarding these issues, which are more likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than requests for admissions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60: “Admit or deny that you were acting under color of law on January 26, 2005.” 28 14 1 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and calls 2 for a legal conclusion. Defendant’s objections are overruled as this request seeks an application 3 of law to fact – i.e. whether Defendant was employed by the state, so as to be a state actor, so as 4 to have been acting under the color of law on January 26, 2005. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 5 49-50 (1988). Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. 6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 62: “Admit or deny that you are responsible for the daily operation of 4A 2 building unit on, or before January 26, 2005.” 7 8 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63: “Admit or deny that you are responsible for the daily operation of 4A 2 building unit after January 26, 2005.” 10 Ruling: Defendant objects to these request on the grounds that they are overly broad, vague and 11 ambiguous and are not a statements of fact. Whether a request for admission is a “plain 12 statement of fact” is not a proper basis for objection. However, Defendant’s objections that these 13 requests are overly broad, vague and ambiguous are sustained. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to 14 compel additional responses to requests 62 and 63 is denied. 15 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64: “Admit or deny that Plaintiff requested medical care after he was assaulted sometime on and/or thereafter January 26, 2005.” 17 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and 18 ambiguous and is not a plain statement of fact. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s 19 motion to compel is granted. 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77: “Admit or deny that you are familiar with California law, Penal Code § 129 - False Statement purportedly under oath though not sworn to.” 21 22 23 24 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 78: “Admit or deny that you are familiar with California Law, Penal Code §132 - Offering forged or altered documents as genuine.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 79: “Admit or deny that you are familiar with California law, Penal Code § 134 - Falsifying documents to be used in evidence.” 27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 80: “Admit or deny that you are familiar with California law, Penal Code § 135 - Destroying or concealing documentary evidence.” 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 81: 26 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 “Admit or deny that you are familiar with California law, Penal Code § 135 Destroying or concealing documentary evidence.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 82: “Admit or deny that you are familiar with California law, Penal Code § 141 Planting, altering, or concealing physical evidence.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 83: “Admit or deny that you are familiar with California law, Penal Code § 147 - inhumane treatment or oppression of prisoner.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 84: “Admit or deny that you are familiar with California law, Penal Code § 149 Assault and Battery by a peace officer - Third Degree.” Ruling: Defendant objects to requests 77-84 on the grounds that they are vague and ambiguous, and on the grounds that the requests ask Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. Without waiving objections, Defendant admits that in January 2005, he was aware of the rules and regulations associated with executing his duties as a Correctional Sergeant. Defendant’s objections are overruled. However, Plaintiff has not shown any deficiency with Defendant’s response to these requests. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 85: “Admit or deny that you have been investigated by the internal affairs office for acts of misconduct.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and ambiguous – which are sustained. Defendant also objects to this request on the basis that it requests that Defendant admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. Defendants objections are overruled. Stating that a request seeks a Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection. Plaintiff is entitled to obtain discovery on any nonprivileged matter which need not be admissible at the trial if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, Plaintiff has propounded alternative forms of discovery regarding these issues, which are more likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than requests for admissions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 86: “Admit or deny that greater force was used against Plaintiff, where no force was required at all.” 28 16 1 Ruling: Defendant’s objection to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous is 2 sustained. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Defendant further objects to the 3 request on the grounds that it does not contain a plain statement of fact to be admitted or denied – 4 which is not a proper basis for objection. 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 88: “Admit or deny that Plaintiff was escorted out of cell #43 to be interviewed by the psychologist in the 4A-2 building - 2 right side rotunda/sally port holding cages.” 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 89: “Admit or deny that once Plaintiff was placed in the holding cages his restraints were not removed.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to the request on the grounds that the request asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted with the limitation that Defendant must provide a response to this request only for the time frame of January 1, 2005 through February 28, 2005. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 90: “Admit or deny that you were the sole contributing cause of the subject incident.” Ruling: Defendant’s objections to the request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous are sustained. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 91: “Admit or deny that Plaintiff had a swollen black eye after the incident in subject.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and does not contain a plain statement of fact to be admitted or denied by Defendant. Without waiving objections, Defendant denies that he committed or assisted in any acts on January 26, 2005, leading to Plaintiff being physically harmed. Defendant’s objections of overly broad, vague and ambiguous are sustained. Plaintiff does not show any deficiencies in the answer Defendant provided and the Court finds none. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 92: “Admit or deny that you were investigated by prison officials in 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 this case, of excessive force used on January 26 2005, concerning your actions.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and does not contain a plain statement of fact to be admitted or denied by Defendant. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 93: “Admit or deny that you made threats toward Plaintiff on January 26, 2005 about his alleged past actions not being tolerated.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and does not contain a plain statement of fact to be admitted or denied by Defendant. Without waiving objections, Defendant denies making any threatening statements to Plaintiff on January 26, 2005. Defendant’s objections are overruled. However, Plaintiff does not show any deficiencies in the answer Defendant provided and the Court finds none. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 94: “Admit or deny that you can identify the guards who accompanied you to escort Plaintiff on January 26 2005.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and does not contain a plain statement of fact to be admitted or denied by Defendant. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 95: “Admit or deny that you are familiar with California Law, Penal Code § 139 Threatening Witnesses.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. Defendant’s objections are overruled. However, this request seeks information that is irrelevant as it is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and Plaintiff has not shown any deficiency with Defendant’s response to this request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 96: “Admit or deny that punching or striking an inmate with your fist 18 1 is apart [sic] of the CDCR Departmental use of force policy and options.” 2 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and 3 ambiguous and does not contain a plain statement of fact to be admitted or denied by Defendant. 4 Defendant’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 97: “Admit or deny that punching or striking an [sic] prisoner with your fist is in compliance with the Corcoran State Prison use of force policy and options.” 6 7 8 9 10 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and does not contain a plain statement of fact to be admitted or denied by Defendant. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. 12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 98: “Admit or deny that punching and/or striking an prisoner in the facial area is apart [sic] of the CDCR Departmental use of force policy and options.” 13 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and 14 ambiguous and does not contain a plain statement of fact to be admitted or denied by Defendant. 15 Defendant’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 99: “Admit or deny that punching and/or striking a prisoner in the facial area is apart [sic] of the Corcoran State Prison use of force policy and options.” 11 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and does not contain a plain statement of fact to be admitted or denied by Defendant. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 100: “Admit or deny that an interview tape was conducted of Plaintiff [sic] injuries.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and does not contain a plain statement of fact to be admitted or denied by Defendant. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendants is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 28 19 1 B. Defendant Northcutt’s Responses to Requests for Admission 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff did not attempt to commit battery on you at anytime on January 26, 2005. Battery by this term, means that which is defined in Section 242 of the California Penal Code, (to include section 4501.5).” 5 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without 6 waiving objections and assuming battery refers to an attempt to cause bodily harm, Defendant 7 admits that he does not recall Plaintiff attempting to assault him on January 26, 2005. 8 Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant is reminded that an inquiry of solely one’s own 9 memory is insufficient. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. 2 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff’s hands were secured behind his back with a pair of handcuffs and the lanyard device attached to the handcuffs with a pad lock, during the entire escort on January 26, 2005.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff was also secured in leg irons during the entire escort on January 26, 2005.” Ruling: Defendant objects to theses request on the grounds that they are compound, vague and ambiguous. Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the restraints used on Plaintiff on January 26, 2005, but Defendant admits that whenever an inmate is escorted to the Security Housing Unit, they are generally transported in handcuffs and leg restraints. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant is reminded that an inquiry of solely one’s own memory is insufficient. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff was placed in a spit mask on January 26, 2005 during the entire escort.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does not recall whether Plaintiff had a spit mask placed on his head while being transported to the Security Housing Unit on January 26, 2005. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant is reminded that an inquiry of solely one’s own memory is insufficient basis upon which to claim an inability to admit or deny a request for admission. Plaintiff’s 28 20 1 motion to compel is granted. 2 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 “Admit or deny that you have no facts in support of your general denial.” 3 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10 “Admit or deny that you have no facts in support of your affirmative defense listed in your general denial.” 6 Ruling: Defendant objects to theses request on the grounds that they are vague and ambiguous, 7 and do not contain a plain statement of fact. Without waiving objections, Defendant denies that 8 Plaintiff’s allegations as stated in the complaint are true. These requests are over broad. 9 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12 “Admit or deny that during the escort of Plaintiff from the (ACH) unit to the 4A yard, building two (2), right side, your were in control of holding the lanyard device attached to Plaintiffs handcuffs.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving objections and assuming Plaintiff is referring to being transported to the Security Housing Unit on January 26, 2005, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does not recall what restraints were used on Plaintiff. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14 “Admit or deny that you escorted Plaintiff to C-Section cell #43 and placed Plaintiff on his knees.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving objections and assuming Plaintiff is referring to being transported to the Security Housing Unit on January 26, 2005, Defendant admits that he assisted in transporting Plaintiff, but does not recall whether he placed Plaintiff on his knees. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 28 21 1 motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information 2 and provide an amended answer to this request. 3 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15 “Admit or deny that you removed the leg irons from Plaintiffs legs/ankles.” 5 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 6 Without waiving objections and assuming Plaintiff is referring to being transported to the 7 Security Housing Unit on January 26, 2005, Defendant admits that he assisted in transporting 8 Plaintiff, but does not recall if he removed the leg restraints. Defendant’s objections are 9 overruled. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on 10 his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 11 motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information 12 and provide an amended answer to this request. 13 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16 “Admit or deny that you removed the handcuffs and lanyard device from Plaintiffs wrist.” 15 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 16 Without waiving objections and assuming Plaintiff is referring to being transported to the 17 Security Housing Unit on January 26, 2005, Defendant admits that he assisted in transporting 18 Plaintiff, but does not recall if he removed any restraints. Defendant’s objections are overruled. 19 Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of 20 recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to 21 compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide 22 an amended answer to this request. 23 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23 “Admit or deny that you were the sole contributing cause of the subject incident.” 25 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, and 26 does not contain a plain statement of fact. Without waiving objections, Defendant denies that the 27 facts stated in Plaintiff’s complaint are true. Whether a request for admission is a “plain 28 statement of fact” is not a proper basis for objection. However, Defendant’s objections that this 22 1 request is vague and ambiguous is sustained. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is 2 denied. 3 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff complied with all orders on January 26, 2005.” 5 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 6 Defendant’s objections are sustained. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25 “Admit or deny that you are mentally capable to determine the difference between reasonable force, excessive force and unnecessary force being applied.” 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ruling: Defendant neither admits nor denies these requests, but rather objects on the grounds that they are vague and ambiguous. Defendant’s objection is sustained. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26 “Admit or deny that you were acting under the color of the law on January 26, 2005.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and calls for a legal conclusion. Defendant’s objections are overruled as this request seeks an application of law to fact – i.e. whether Defendant was employed by the state, so as to be a state actor, so as to have been acting under the color of law on January 26, 2005. See West, 487 U.S. at 49-50. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40 “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code §129-False Statement purportedly under oath though not sworn to, on or before 1-26-05.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41 “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code §132-Offering Forged or Altered Document as genuine, on or before 1-26-05.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42 “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code § 134-Falsifying documents to be used in evidence, on or before 1-26-05.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43 “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code § 135-Destroying or concealing documentary evidence, 23 1 on or before 1-26-05.” 2 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44 “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code § 141-Planting, Altering, or concealing Physical Evidence, on or before 1-26-05.” 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45 “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code § 147-Inhumane Treatment or Oppression of Prisoner, on or before 1-26-05.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46 “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code § 149-Assault and Battery by a Peace Officer - Third Degree, on or before 1-26-05.” 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code § 653f-Solicitation to committ [sic] a felony, on or before 126-05.” 12 Ruling: Defendant objects to requests 40-47 on the grounds that they are vague and ambiguous, 13 and on the grounds that the requests ask Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a 14 material fact to this lawsuit. Without waiving objections, Defendant admits that in January 2005, 15 he was aware of the rules and regulations associated with executing his duties as a Correctional 16 Sergeant. Defendant’s objections are overruled. However, Plaintiff has not shown any 17 deficiency with Defendant’s response to these requests. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: “Admit or deny that Plaintiff had no pre-existing injuries to any of the areas of his body in controversay [sic], in this lawsuit, at the time of the subject incident.” 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does not recall whether Plaintiff had some pre-existing injuries on January 26, 2005. Defendant’s objections are sustained. Further, Plaintiff has not shown any basis upon which Defendant would be able and/or qualified to have ascertained whether Plaintiff suffered from any pre-existing injuries. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: “Admit or deny that you have no documentary/documentation which would support the contention that Plaintiff had any pre-existing injuries to similar parts of his body that are in issue in the subject incident.” 24 1 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, and 2 does not contain a plain statement of fact. Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to 3 admit or deny the request because he does not recall whether Plaintiff had some pre-existing 4 injuries on January 26, 2005. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s response that 5 he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply 6 with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is 7 required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this 8 request. 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: “Admit or deny that you have had prior citizens’ complaints filed against you for excessive use of force/employee misconduct.” 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: “Admit or deny that you have had prior 602's CDC prison complaints filed against you for excessive use of force/employee misconduct.” Ruling: Defendant objects to these requests on the grounds that they are overly broad, vague and ambiguous and ask Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. Defendants objections are overruled. Further, stating that a request asked Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection as Plaintiff is entitled to obtain discovery on any nonprivileged matter which need not be admissible at the trial if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted, with the limitation that Defendant must provide a response to this request only for the time frame of January 1, 2002 to the date of this order. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51: “Admit or deny that you have had prior citizens’ complaints filed against you for retaliation.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: “Admit or deny that you have had prior 602's CDC complaints filed against you for retaliation.” Ruling: Defendant objects to these requests on the grounds that they are overly broad, vague and 28 25 1 ambiguous, and asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this 2 lawsuit. Defendant’s objections that this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous are 3 overruled. Whether a request seeks a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection. 4 However, this request does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 5 admissible evidence as there are no claims of retaliation in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 6 motion to compel is denied. 7 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: “Admit or deny that you were investigated and/or interviewed by Corcoran State Prison officials concerning the incident subject of 1-26-05.” 9 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and 10 ambiguous, and is asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this 11 lawsuit. Without waiving objections, Defendant denies that he received any disciplinary 12 punishment from any actions taken on January 26, 2005. Defendant’s objections are overruled. 13 Defendant’s response did not answer the request such that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is 14 granted. 15 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57: “Admit or deny that Plaintiff suffered a swollen black eye on the right side of his face.” 17 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 18 Without waiving objections, Defendant denies that he caused Plaintiff any physical injuries. 19 Defendant’s objections of overly broad, vague and ambiguous are overruled. Defendant’s 20 response did not answer the request such that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. 21 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59: “Admit or deny that you have and had access to all inmates 1140 files housed in the Security Housing of 4A yard, at your disposal.” 23 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 24 Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to respond to the request as he is unsure of 25 what a 1140 file is. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s response that he is 26 unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted with the limitation 28 that Defendant must provide a response to this request only for the time frame of October 1, 2004 26 1 through January 31, 2005. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and 2 provide an amended answer to this request. 3 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60: “Admit or deny that you have access to the Daily Movement Sheet (D.M.S.) Printout which informs you which inmates housed in the 4A units are participants in the mental health program.” 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to time. Defendant’s objection is sustained. However, Defendant’s failure to even attempt to provide a qualified response to this request by limiting his response as to his access to such records on the date of incident (January 26, 2005) as alleged in the Complaint attempts to avoid responding based on a technicality rather than attempting to meet the substance of the requested admission. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63: “Admit or deny that you can identify the rest of the guards who participated and assisted in the escorting of Plaintiff on 1-26-05.” Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving objections, Defendant denies the request as he does not recall any of the names of any officers that may have assisted in escorting Plaintiff to the Security Housing Unit on January 26, 2005. Defendant’s objection is overruled. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64: “Admit or deny that you were in possession and/or read the MEMO concerning Plaintiffs’ arrival dated 1-26-05.” Ruling: Defendant’s objections to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and ambiguous are overruled. Plaintiff is sufficiently clear in identifying the memo and Defendant must answer. Further, Defendant’s objection that this request is not a plain statement of fact is not a proper basis for objection. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 68: “Admit or deny that you have a history of assaulting prisoners in mechanical restraints.” 28 27 1 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and not 2 reasonably related to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant’s objections are sustained. 3 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 69: “Admit or deny that you had knowledge of Plaintiffs alleged prior acts of assault on guards, at Tehachapi State Prison.” 5 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 70: “Admit or deny that you had knowledge of Plaintiff’s alleged prior acts of assault on guards in general.” 8 Ruling: Defendant objects to these requests on the grounds that they are vague and ambiguous. 9 Defendant’s objections are overruled. Without waiving objections, Defendant does not 6 10 specifically recall Plaintiff, nor is he able to recall what information he had in January 2005, 11 regarding Plaintiff’s prior assaults on officers. Thus, he is unable to admit or deny the request. 12 However, while responding solely from one’s own memory to a request for admission is 13 ordinarily insufficient, this request seeks an admission or denial as to Defendant’s own 14 knowledge. Defendant responded that he does not recall, which, in this situation is sufficient. 15 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 71: “Admit or deny that you, H. German and John Doe entered Plaintiffs cell at the (ACH) unit on 1-26-05 and placed Plaintiff in mechanical restraints.” 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does not recall who placed Plaintiff in restraints on January 26, 2005. Defendant’s objection is overruled. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 73: “Admit or deny that you have been sued by other inmates at C.S.P. - COR for similar acts of misconduct in the form of excessive use of force which resulted in injury or otherwise.” 28 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and 26 28 1 does not ask Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is a material fact to this lawsuit. 2 Defendants objections are overruled. Further, stating that a request asked Defendant to admit or 3 deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection as Plaintiff is 4 entitled to obtain discovery on any nonprivileged matter which need not be admissible at the trial 5 if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s 6 motion to compel is granted with the limitation that Defendant must provide a response to this 7 request only for the time frame of January 1, 2002 to the date of this order. Defendant is required 8 to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 9 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 74: “Admit or deny that you have been served 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints by other inmates, thought the marshalls [sic] services, for similar act of misconduct in the form of assault and battery/excessive use of force, which resulted in injury or otherwise.” 12 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and 13 asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. Defendants 14 objections are overruled. Further, stating that a request asked Defendant to admit or deny a 15 statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection as Plaintiff is entitled 16 to obtain discovery on any nonprivileged matter which need not be admissible at the trial if it 17 appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s motion 18 to compel is granted with the limitation that Defendant must provide a response to this request 19 only for the time frame of January 1, 2002 to the date of this order. Defendant is required to 20 check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 21 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 76: “Admit or deny that on 1-26-05 there were two sergeants present during the escort of Plaintiff on 1-26-05.” 23 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, and 24 asks Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. Without 25 waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request “because he only recalls 26 Sergeant Martinez as present during the escort of Plaintiff on January 26, 2005.” Defendant’s 27 objections are overruled. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request 28 based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). 10 29 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily 2 obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 3 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77: “Admit or deny that you have been investigated by the Internal Affairs Office for the same or similar acts of misconduct in the form of assault and battery/excessive use of force on a prisoner.” 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does not recall if he placed a “spitmask” on Plaintiff on January 26, 2005. Defendant’s objections are overruled and the response appears completely unrelated to the request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted with the limitation that Defendant must provide a response to this request only for the time frame of January 1, 2002 to the date of this order. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 78: “Admit or deny that punching or striking an inmate with your fist is apart [sic] of the CDCR Departmental use of force policy and options.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 79: “Admit or deny that punching or striking an inmate with your fist is in compliance with the Corcoran State Prison use of force policy and options.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 80: “Admit or deny striking or punching an inmate in the facial area in apart [sic] of the CDCR Departmental use of force policy and options.” 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 81: “Admit or deny striking or punching an inmate in the facial area is apart [sic] of the Corcoran State Prison use of force policy and options.” 21 Ruling: Defendant objects to these requests on the grounds that they are vague and ambiguous, 22 and incomplete hypotheticals. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to 23 compel is granted. 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 86: “Admit or deny that cell #43 in building two (2) right, c-section, was not fitted as a management cell on, or before January 26 2005, or thereafter.” 19 25 26 27 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does not recall 28 30 1 whether the specified cell was placed on Management Control Status on the specified date. 2 Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny 3 this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check 5 all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 87: “Admit or deny that Plaintiff did not have a cell mate at anytime, while he was housed in the 4A building two (2) right, cell #43.” 7 8 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 88: “Admit or deny that Plaintiff did not have a cell mate when you picked him from the (ACH) unit cell on January 26, 2005.” 10 Ruling: Defendant is unable to admit or deny these requests because they ask Defendant to 11 admit or deny statements that are not material facts to this lawsuit. Stating that a request asked 12 Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper 13 objection as Plaintiff is entitled to obtain discovery on any nonprivileged matter which need not 14 be admissible at the trial if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 15 evidence. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. 16 Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer 17 to this request. 18 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 89: “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005 prior to you escorting Plaintiff from the (ACH) unit he did not have any injuries whatsoever.” 20 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to 21 “injuries.” Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he cannot recall Plaintiff’s 22 physical condition when he was escorted on January 26, 2005. Defendant’s objections are 23 sustained. Plaintiff has not shown any basis upon which Defendant would be able and/or 24 qualified to have ascertained whether Plaintiff suffered from any pre-existing injuries. Further, 25 Plaintiff fails to show deficiencies in Defendant’s response and the Court finds none in as much 26 as Defendant would only be able to respond as to any visible injuries he recalls seeing on 27 Plaintiff during the escort. Since Defendant does not recall Plaintiff’s condition when he was 28 escorted, and the request seeks information based on Defendant’s memory, Plaintiff’s motion to 31 1 compel is denied. 2 3 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 90: “Admit of [sic] deny that on January 26, 2005 you were acting on instructions given to you by J.M. Martinez.” 4 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it does not contain a plain 5 statement of fact to be admitted or denied by Defendant – which is not a proper objection and 6 hence is overruled. However, Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague 7 and ambiguous as to “acting on instructions.” This objection is sustained. Plaintiff’s motion to 8 compel is denied. 9 10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 92: “Admit or deny that you answered these admissions under sworn oath.” 11 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 12 Without waiving objections, Defendant admits that these responses are accurate as to the best of 13 Defendant’s recollection. Defendant’s objection is overruled. However, there is no requirement 14 that the response be verified. Defense counsel’s signature on Defendant’s responses creates a 15 “certificate of merit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g). No further response is required, hence Plaintiff’s 16 motion to compel is denied. 17 18 19 20 21 22 C. Defendant German’s Responses to Requests for Admission REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005 you were apart [sic] of the escort team that escorted Plaintiff from the (ACH) unit to the 4A yard building two (2) security housing unit.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4 “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005 you were one of the escort guards holding on arm during the escort.” 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5 “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005 Plaintiff was escorted to 4A right Rotunda/Sally Port area, and placed up against the wall. by yourself and M. Northcutt.” 25 Ruling: Defendant responded to these requests that, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable 26 to admit or deny the request because he does not recall whether he escorted Plaintiff on the 27 specified date. Defendant does admit to working on January 26, 2005, and that escorting inmates 28 to the SHU was part of his normal duties. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or 23 32 1 deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check 3 all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 4 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005 M. Northcutt and J.M. Martinez were also apart [sic] of this escort team.” 6 Ruling: After reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he 7 does not recall whether he escorted Plaintiff on the specified date. Defendant does admit to 8 working on January 26, 2005, and that during that time period he worked with Officer Northcutt 9 and Sergeant Martinez. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request 10 based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily 12 obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 13 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7 “Admit or deny that you know the identies [sic] of the other guards who participated in the escort of Plaintiff on January 26, 2005.” 15 Ruling: Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does not recall whether he 16 escorted Plaintiff on the specified date. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny 17 this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check 19 all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 20 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 “Admit or deny that there was two sergeants present during the escort of Plaintiff on January 26, 2005.” 22 Ruling: After reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he 23 does not recall whether he escorted Plaintiff on the specified date. Defendant’s response that he 24 is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply 25 with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is 26 required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this 27 request. 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005 you volunteered to participate in the escorting of Plaintiff.” Ruling: After reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does not recall whether he escorted Plaintiff on the specified date. Defendant does admit to working on January 26, 2005, and that escorting inmates to the SHU was part of his normal duties. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10 “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005 you escorted Plaintiff to cell #43 in C-Section and placed him on his knees infront [sic] of the cell door/area.” 12 Ruling: After reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he 13 does not recall whether he escorted Plaintiff on the specified date. Defendant does admit to 14 working on January 26, 2005, and that escorting inmates to the SHU was part of his normal 15 duties. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his 16 lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 17 motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information 18 and provide an amended answer to this request. 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005 Plaintiff was placed in cell #43 in C-Section and placed him on his knees infront [sic] of the cell door/area.” 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Ruling: After reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does not recall whether he escorted Plaintiff on the specified date. Defendant does admit to working on January 26, 2005, and that escorting inmates to the SHU was part of his normal duties. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 28 34 3 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff was placed in a spit mask, leg irons, handcuffs, and the lanyard chain attached to the handcuffs along with the pad lock and triangle handle, prior to being escorted from the (ACH) unit on January 26, 2005.” 4 Ruling: After reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he 5 does not recall whether he escorted Plaintiff on the specified date. Defendant’s response that he 6 is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply 7 with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is 8 required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this 9 request. 1 2 12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff did not attempt to assault you at anytime on January 26, 2005. Assault by this term means that which is defined in Section 240 of the California Penal Code. (to include section 4800 of the Penal Code).” 13 Ruling: After reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he 14 has no recollection of Plaintiff attempting to assault him on January 26, 2005. Defendant’s 15 response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection 16 does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is 17 granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an 18 amended answer to this request. 19 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff did not attempt to commit battery on you at anytime on January 26, 2005. Battery by this term, means that which is defined in section 242 of the California Penal Code (to include Section 4501.5).” 22 Ruling: After reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he 23 has no recollection of Plaintiff attempting to batter him on January 26, 2005. Defendant’s 24 response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection 25 does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is 26 granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an 27 amended answer to this request. 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16 10 11 20 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 “Admit or deny that Cell #43 in building two (2) right C-Section is not a management cell, and was not one in January 26, 2005.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does not recall whether the specified cell was placed on Management Control Status on the specified date. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18 “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005 you removed Plaintiff’s mechanical restraints prior to placing him in cell #43.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving objections and assuming Plaintiff is referring to the purported escort on January 26, 2005, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does not recall whether he escorted Plaintiff on the specified date. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff did not have a cell mate at any time, while he was housed in 4A-building (2) right cell #43.” Ruling: Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does not recall whether Plaintiff had a cell mate on January 26, 2005, however, it often varies as to whether Security Housing Unit inmates have cell mates. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff did not have a cell mate when you picked him up from the (ACH) unit cell on January 26, 2005.” 28 36 1 Ruling: Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does not recall whether 2 Plaintiff had a cell mate on January 26, 2005, however, it often varies as to whether Security 3 Housing Unit inmates have cell mates. Defendant’s response that he is unable to admit or deny 4 this request based solely on his lack of recollection does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is required to check 6 all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this request. 7 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21 “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005 prior to you escorting Plaintiff from the (ACH) unit he did not have any injuries whatsoever.” 9 Ruling: After reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he 10 does not recall whether he escorted Plaintiff on the specified date. Defendant’s objections are 11 sustained. Defendant’s objections are sustained. Further, Plaintiff has not shown any basis upon 12 which Defendant would be able and/or qualified to have ascertained whether Plaintiff suffered 13 from any pre-existing injuries. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 14 15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22 “Admit or deny that no person or entity other than these listed in the complaint contributed in any way to the subject incident.” 16 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. These 17 objections are sustained. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 18 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff did not contribute in anyway to the subject incident.” 20 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 21 Without waiving objections and assuming Plaintiff is referring to the purported escort on January 22 26, 2005, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he 23 does not recall whether he escorted Plaintiff on the specified date. Defendant’s objections are 24 sustained. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 25 26 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24 “Admit or deny that Plaintiff complied with all orders on January 26, 2005.” 27 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without 28 waiving objections and assuming Plaintiff is referring to the purported escort on January 26, 37 1 2005, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does 2 not recall whether he escorted Plaintiff on the specified date. Defendant’s objections are 3 sustained. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26 “Admit or deny that you are mentally capable to determine the difference between reasonable force, excessive force and unnecessary force being applied.” 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and ambiguous. Defendant’s objections are sustained. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27 “Admit or deny that you were acting under the color of law on January 26, 2005.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and ambiguous, and calls for a legal conclusion. Defendant’s objections are overruled as this request seeks an application of law to fact – i.e. whether Defendant was employed by the state, so as to be a state actor, so as to have been acting under the color of law on January 26, 2005. See West, 487 U.S. at 49-50. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40 “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code §118-1-False Report filed by a Peace Officer, on or before 1-26-05.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41 “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code §129-False Statement Purportedly under oath though not sworn to, on or before 1-26-05.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42 “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code §132-Offering Forged or Altered Document as genuine, on or before 1-26-05.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43 “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code §134-Falsifying Documents to be used in Evidence, on or before 1-26-05.” 27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44 “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code §135-Destroying or Concealing Documentary Evidence, on or before 1-26-05.” 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45 26 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code §141-Planting, Altering, or Concealing Physical Evidence, on or before 1-26-05.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46 “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code §147-Inhumane Treatment or Oppression of Prisoner, on or before 1-26-05.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code §149-Assault and Battery by a Peace Officer-Third Degree, on or before 1-26-05.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48:. “Admit or deny that you are and/or were familiar with California Law, Penal Code § 653(f)-Solicitation to Committ [sic] a Felony, on or before 1-26-05.” Ruling: Defendant objects to requests 40-48 on the grounds that they are vague and ambiguous, and on the grounds that the requests ask Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. Without waiving objections, Defendant admits that in January 2005, he was aware of the rules and regulations associated with executing his duties as a Correctional Sergeant. Defendant’s objections are overruled. However, Plaintiff has not shown any deficiency with Defendant’s response to these requests. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: “Admit or deny that you did not seek medical attention for Plaintiff’s injuries.” Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Defendant’s objection is overruled. Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because it is not specific as to time and date. This is a valid qualifying statement as the request is overly broad as to the time and date as phrased. However, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted, with the limitation that Defendant must provide a response to this request only for the time frame of January 1, 2005 through February 28, 2005. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: “Admit or deny that you were aware Plaintiff was and still is a participant in the mental health program.” Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does 28 39 1 not know Plaintiff’s mental health status now and does not know if Plaintiff’s mental health 2 status has ever been made known to him. Defendant’s objections are overruled. However, while 3 responding solely from one’s own memory to a request for admission is ordinarily insufficient, 4 this request seeks an admission or denial as to Defendant’s own knowledge. Defendant 5 responded that he does not recall, which, in this situation is sufficient. Plaintiff’s motion to 6 compel is denied. 7 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: “Admit or deny that you had access to all inmate files housed in the same unit that you work in.” 9 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 10 Defendant’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted with the limitation 11 that Defendant must provide a response to this request only for the time frame of October 1, 2004 12 through January 31, 2005. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and 13 provide an amended answer to this request. 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: “Admit or deny that in the past few years there has been other staff compliants [sic] filed against you by other prisoners, alleging you used excessive use of force on them here at Corcoran State Prison.” 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ruling: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he cannot possibly know the subject matter of all inmate appeals filed within the last few years. Defendants objections are overruled. Plaintiff is entitled to obtain discovery on any nonprivileged matter which need not be admissible at the trial if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted, with the limitation that Defendant must provide a response to this request only for the time frame of January 1, 2002 to the date of this order. 26 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: “Admit or deny that you can identify M. Northcutt as one of the guards escorting Plaintiff on 1-26-05 from the (ACH) Unit to 4A building two (2).” 27 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 28 Without waiving objections and assuming Plaintiff is referring to the purported escort on January 25 40 1 26, 2005, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the request because he does not recall whether he 2 escorted Plaintiff on the specified date. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s 3 response that he is unable to admit or deny this request based solely on his lack of recollection 4 does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is 5 granted. Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an 6 amended answer to this request. 7 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58: “Admit or deny that you were aware in possession of and/or read the MEMO dated 1-26-05, concerning Plaintiff.” 9 Ruling: Defendant’s objections to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and 10 ambiguous are overruled. Plaintiff is sufficiently clear in identifying the memo and Defendant 11 must answer. Further, Defendant’s objection that this request is not a plain statement of fact is 12 not a proper basis for objection. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. 13 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59: “Admit or deny that prison officials conducted an investigation into your actions concerning the incident on 1-26-05.” 15 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is “vague and ambiguous as to 16 ‘an investigation.’” Without waiving objections, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the 17 request because he is unaware of any investigations conducted by prison officials into any actions 18 he committed on January 26, 2005. Defendant denies, however, that any disciplinary action was 19 taken against him for any actions arising out of January 26, 2005. Defendant’s objections are 20 overruled. To the extent that Defendant responded that he is unable to admit or deny this request 21 based solely on his lack of recollection, such response does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 36(a)(4). While Defendant responded that he was not subjected to any disciplinary action as a 23 result of the incident, the request sought admission as to whether an investigation into 24 Defendant’s actions was conducted, not the result thereof. Thus, Defendant’s answer was not 25 responsive to the request. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is 26 required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer to this 27 request. 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 61: 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005 J.M. Martinez was your superior officer of the day in 4A 2 building.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. This objection is overruled. Without waiving objections, Defendant admits that J. Martinez was a Sergeant in January 2005, and if he was on duty the same time as Defendant, would have been Defendant’s supervising officer. Plaintiff does not show any deficiencies with Defendant’s response and the Court finds none. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 62: “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005 you were acting on instructions given to you by J.M. Martinez.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. This objection is sustained. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63: “Admit or deny that you have been investigated by the Internals [sic] Affairs Office for prior acts of misconduct.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is compound, vague and ambiguous – which are sustained. Defendant also objects to this request on the basis that it requests that Defendant admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. Defendants objections are overruled. Stating that a request seeks a Defendant to admit or deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection. Plaintiff is entitled to obtain discovery on any nonprivileged matter which need not be admissible at the trial if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, Plaintiff has propounded alternative forms of discovery regarding these issues, which are more likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than requests for admissions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64: “Admit or deny that prisoner Charles Kensey P-04-738 filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint against you, alleging you and your co-defendants of that case, brutally attacked and beat him while he was in mechanical restraints, resulting in him receiving numerous stitches to his face and head, which rendered him confined to a wheel chair.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 65: “Admit or deny that you and your co-defendants of that case, filed (RUR) CDC-115 and CDC 837 incidents reports of this brutal assault, 42 1 attack and beating of prisoner Charles Kensey P-04738.” 2 3 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 66: “Admit or deny that Charles Kensey P-04738 filed an appeal 602 complaint against you on this matter.” 4 Ruling: Defendant objects to these requests on the grounds that they are compound, vague and 5 ambiguous – which are sustained. Defendant also asserts that these requests ask him to admit or 6 deny a statement that is not a material fact to this lawsuit. Whether a request for admission seeks 7 a material fact to this lawsuit is not a proper objection. However, these requests seeks 8 information regarding claims that another prisoner had against Defendant and other prison 9 personnel which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 10 evidence. Further, Plaintiff has propounded alternative forms of discovery regarding these 11 issues, which are more likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than requests for 12 admissions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is denied. 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 69: “Admit or deny that punching or striking a prisoner with your fist is in compliance with the Corcoran State Prison use of force policy and options.” 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 70: “Admit or deny that punching or stiking [sic] a prisoner with your fist is apart [sic] of the CDCR Departmental use of force policy and options.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 71: “Admit or deny that punching and/or striking a prisoner in the facial area is apart [sic] of the CDCR Departmental use of force policy and options.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 72: “Admit or deny that punching and/or striking a prisoner in the facial area with your fist is in compliance with the Corcoran State Prison use of force policy and options.” Ruling: Defendant objects to these requests on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, and incomplete hypotheticals. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 73: “Admit or deny that an interview tape was conducted of Plaintiff [sic] injuries.” Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 28 43 1 Defendant’s objection is overruled. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. 2 Defendant is required to check all readily obtainable information and provide an amended answer 3 to this request. 4 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 90: “Admit or deny that on January 26, 2005 you were acting on instructions given to you by J.M. Martinez.” 6 Ruling: Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it does not contain a plain 7 statement of fact to be admitted or denied by Defendant – which is overruled. However, 8 Defendant’s objection to the request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to “acting 9 on instructions” is sustained. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 10 II. Conclusion 11 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses from Defendant Martinez to requests and 13 12, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32-34, 37, 38, 42-48, 52, 54, 58, 62, 63, 77-86, 90, 91, 93, and 14 95 are DENIED; 15 2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses from Defendant Martinez to requests 6, 8- 16 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 35, 36, 39, 49, 50, 55-57, 60, 64, 88, 89, 92, 94, and 96- 17 100 are GRANTED, subject to the limitations set forth in this order; 18 3. 10, 23-25, 40-48, 51, 53, 68-70, 89, 90, and 92 are DENIED; 19 20 Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses from Defendant Northcutt to requests 9, 4. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses from Defendant Northcutt to requests 4-7, 21 12, 14-16, 26, 49, 50, 52, 54, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 71, 73, 74, 76-81, and 86-88 are 22 GRANTED, subject to the limitations set forth in this order; 23 5. 26, 40-48, 52, 61-66, and 90 are DENIED; and 24 25 Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses from Defendant German to requests 21-24, 6. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses from Defendant German to requests 3-11, 26 13-16, 18-20, 27, 50, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, and 69-73 are GRANTED, subject to the 27 limitations set forth in this order. 28 44 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij October 27, 2009 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 45

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.