(PC) Ford v. Wildey et al, No. 1:2010cv01024 - Document 54 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING In Part 45 Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory Number 25 as to Defendant Wildey and Interrogatory Number 22 as to Defendant Marshall and DENYING In Part 45 Motion to Compel in all other respects, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/6/14. (Martin-Gill, S) (30-Day Deadline)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENNY FORD, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. G. WILDEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Case No.: 1:10-cv-01024-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL [ECF No. 45] Plaintiff Benny Ford is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. 20 RELEVANT HISTORY This action is proceeding against Defendant Wildey for excessive force in violation of the 21 22 Eighth Amendment and against Defendant Marshall for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth 23 Amendment. On April 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his requests for 24 25 interrogatories and admissions. Defendants filed an opposition on May 15, 2014. 26 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Legal Standard 4 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of 5 confinement. As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would 6 otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to 7 involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. 8 P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 37, Discovery and Scheduling Order, &5. Further, where 9 otherwise discoverable information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or 10 infringe upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in 11 determining whether disclosure should occur. 12 Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21, 104 S.Ct. 2199 (1984) (privacy rights or interests implicit in broad 13 purpose and language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court 14 for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing assertion of privilege); Soto 15 v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a constitutionally-based right 16 of privacy that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB 17 PC, 2012 WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting inmate=s entitlement to inspect 18 discoverable information may be accommodated in ways which mitigate institutional safety concerns); 19 Robinson v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20 16, 2012) (issuing protective order regarding documents containing information which implicated the 21 safety and security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 22 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for protective order and for redaction of information 23 asserted to risk jeopardizing safety and security of inmates or the institution if released); Womack v. 24 Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) 25 (requiring defendants to submit withheld documents for in camera review or move for a protective 26 order). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. 27 However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The 28 discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of 2 1 discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 2 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties may obtain discovery 3 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party=s claim or defense, and for good cause, 4 the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. 5 R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial 6 if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. 7 (quotation marks omitted). 8 Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel 9 bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV 10 S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at 11 *3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis 12 v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 13 This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the 14 motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why 15 the responding party=s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 16 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4. 17 However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these 18 procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigation; therefore, to the extent possible, the 19 Court endeavors to resolve his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 20 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 21 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 22 B. Motion to Compel 23 1. Interrogatories 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(2) provides that an interrogatory may relate to any 25 matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b). An interrogatory is not objectionable merely 26 because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the 27 court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or 28 until a pretrial conference or some other time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). 3 1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33(b)(1)(A) provides the interrogatories must be answered by 2 the party to whom they are directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1)(A). Further, each interrogatory must, to 3 the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath and the grounds 4 for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) & (4). 5 2. Defendant Wildey 6 a. Interrogatory Number 14 (Set One): 7 “On the date of 7-16-2009, were you aware that it was unconstitutional for correctional officers 8 to intentionally squeeze a pair of handcuffs around a inmates wrists with all your strength?” (Pl.’s 9 Mot. To Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. B at 18.1) 10 Response: 11 Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it assumes facts not in evidence specifically that 12 Defendant “intentionally squeezed a pair of handcuffs around any inmate’s wrist on July 16, 2009 with 13 all Defendant’s strength” or any other date. Without waiving this objection, Defendant responded: it 14 is unconstitutional for a correctional officer to intentionally and maliciously use force on an inmate 15 with the intent of causing serious bodily injury. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, at Ex. B. at 19.) 16 Plaintiff’s Objection to Response: 17 Plaintiff argues Defendant Wildey’s response to interrogatory number 14 is not a direct 18 response and contains excessive verbiage. 19 Ruling: 20 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Defendant Wildey provided a sufficient response to 21 this request for admission by stating his awareness of the unconstitutionality if an officer intentionally 22 and maliciously using force on an inmate with the intent to cause serious bodily injury. Such response 23 is the proper legal definition of excessive force as it applies to Plaintiff’s claim under the Eighth 24 Amendment. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) (for claims arising out of the use of 25 excessive physical force, the issue is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or 26 restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37, 27 28 1 The pages number reflect the pagination as it appears on the Court’s Case Management Electronic Case Filing System. 4 1 130 S.Ct. 1175, 1178 (2010) (per curiam) (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7) (internal quotation marks 2 omitted); Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1028 (9th Cir. 2013)). 3 b. Interrogatory Number 15 (Set One) 4 “On 7-16-2009, was it against rules, procedures, or policies of the California Department of 5 Corrections and Rehabilitation for a correctional officer to intentionally squeeze a pair of handcuffs 6 around a inmates wrists with all your strength?” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. B at 19.) 7 Response: 8 Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it assumes facts not in evidence specifically that 9 Defendant “intentionally squeezed a pair of handcuffs around any inmate’s wrist on July 16, 2009 with 10 all Defendant’s strength,” or any other date. Without waiving this objection, Defendant responded: it 11 is against policy and procedure for a correctional officer to intentionally and maliciously use force on 12 an inmate with the intent of causing serious bodily injury. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. B 13 at 19.) 14 Plaintiff’s Objection to Response: 15 Plaintiff argues Defendant Wildey’s response to interrogatory number 15 is not a direct 16 response and contains excessive verbiage. 17 Ruling: 18 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Defendant Wildey provided a sufficient response to 19 this request by advising Plaintiff that it is against policy and procedure for a correctional officer to 20 intentionally and maliciously use force on an inmate with the intent of causing serious bodily injury, 21 which is the correct legal definition of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See 22 Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. at 6. 23 c. 24 “What are the names of previous lawsuits you’ve been named as a defendant in?” (Pl.’s Mot. 25 Interrogatory Number 25 (Set Two) to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. A at 10.) 26 Initial Response: 27 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, burdensome, 28 irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 5 1 waiving said objections, I do know the names of other lawsuits where I have been named a defendant, 2 and after a reasonable and diligent search, I was not able to locate that information.” (Pl.’s Mot. to 3 Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. A at 11: see Bajwa Decl. § 2, Ex. A.) Defense counsel submits that in preparing the opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, 4 5 counsel discovered a typographical error in the original responses propounded on Plaintiff. 6 Accordingly, Defendant Wildey has amended the response to this interrogatory as reflected below. 7 (Bajwa Decl., Ex. A.) 8 Supplemental Response:2 9 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, burdensome, 10 irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 11 waiving said objections, I do not know the names of other lawsuits where I have been named a 12 defendant, and after a reasonable and diligent search, I was not able to locate that information. 13 Plaintiff’s Objections to Response: 14 Plaintiff argues Defendant Wildey has not provided a full and complete response to this 15 interrogatory. 16 Ruling: 17 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant Wildey cannot plausibly claim that he not 18 aware of the names of previous lawsuits where he was named a defendant, and Defendant makes no 19 specific showing of the details of the diligent search which he claims he conducted. Accordingly, 20 Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is granted. 21 3. Defendant Marshall 22 a. Interrogatory Numbers 16, 17, and 19 23 In his opposition, Defendant Marshall indicates that in the interest of cooperation, he will 24 amend and re-serve his responses to Interrogatories Numbers 16, 17, and 19. (Bajwa Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 25 C.) The Court will address each interrogatory along with the supplemental response provided by 26 Defendant Marshall. 27 2 28 Defendant Wildey amended his response to Plaintiff’s request for interrogatories on May 9, 2014, subsequent to the date Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel on April 24, 2014. (Bajwa Decl., Ex. D.) 6 1 b. Interrogatory Number 16 2 “On 7-16-2009, did you know that a correctional officer could be held liable under the eighth 3 amendmend (sic) of the Federal Constitution, if he see’s another officer physically assaulting a 4 innocent inmate and he doesn’t intervene?” 5 Initial Response: 6 Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, calls for 7 speculation, calls for a legal conclusion, and is vague as to the term “innocent.” Without waiving said 8 objections, Defendant responds: Correctional officers are allowed to use force as necessary to maintain 9 the safety and security of the prison institution, consistent with use of force policies in place at the 10 institution and with their training. 11 Plaintiff’s Objection to Response: 12 Plaintiff objected that Defendant Marshall did not respond to the direct question. (Pl.’s Mot. to 13 Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. F, at 2.) 14 Supplemental Response:3 15 Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, calls for 16 speculation, calls for a legal conclusion, and is vague as to the term “innocent.” Without waiving said 17 objections, Defendant responds: Correctional officers are allowed to use force as necessary to maintain 18 the safety and security of the prison institution, consistent with use of force policies in place at the 19 institution and with their training. Yes, I am aware that correctional officers have a duty to ensure the 20 safety and security of all inmates, from other inmates and correctional staff, and must intervene to stop 21 any assaults on inmates by other inmates or correctional staff. 22 Ruling: 23 In light of Defendant Marshall’s supplemental response, Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be 24 denied. Defendant Marshall’s supplemental response is sufficient by advising Plaintiff that 25 correctional officers have a duty to ensure the safety and security of all inmates and must intervene to 26 27 28 3 Defendant Marshall amended his response to Plaintiff’s request for interrogatories on May 9, 2014, subsequent to the date Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel on April 24, 2014. (Bajwa Decl., Ex. C.) 7 1 stop any assault by other individuals. United States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416, 1447 n.25 (9th Cir. 1994), 2 rev’d on other grounds, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (“[P]olice officers have a duty to intercede when their 3 fellow officers violate the constitutional rights of a suspect or other citizen.”).4 4 c. Interrogatory Number 17 5 “On 7-16-2009, did you know it was a violation of the California Code of Regulations Title 15, 6 sections 3268.1(?)(1), and 3268.1(c) for a correctional officer to see a inmate being physically 7 assaulted by a corrupt fellow officer and not to intervene or report the criminal activity to your 8 supervisor?” Initial Response: 9 Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, is compound, 10 11 calls for speculation and is vague as to the terms “physically assaulted by a corrupt fellow officer” and 12 “not to intervene or report the criminal activity to your supervisor.” Without waiving said objections, 13 Defendant responds: Correctional officers are allowed to use force as necessary to maintain the safety 14 and security of the prison institution, consistent with use of force policies in place at the institution and 15 with their training. 16 Plaintiff’s Objection to Response: 17 Plaintiff objected that Defendant Marshall did not answer the direct question as phrased and 18 seeks to eliminate the unnecessary rhetoric. 19 Supplemental Response: 20 Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, calls for 21 speculation calls for a legal conclusion, and is vague as to the terms “physically assaulted by a corrupt 22 fellow officer.” Without waiving said objections, Defendant responds: Correctional officers are 23 4 24 25 26 27 28 The Court is mindful of the fact that Defendants amended certain responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests only after Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. If any party attempts to withhold documents or provide adequate responses to discovery requests until the other side institutes litigation over the matter through a motion to compel or other relief, then the Court may be inclined to rely solely on the initial response in deciding the matter and for other relief as the Court deems just. The Court is very attuned to the fact that litigation may require amendments to discovery responses in light of the focused litigation, but is also mindful that it often does not. Careful attention should be given to a first response so as to avoid unnecessary litigation. Here, a number of the responses were not addressed properly the first time. Careful attention will be given to avoid wasting the limited resources of this court, especially as in this case when two judicial officers are involved with the case. If persistence and failure to heed the warnings of the court is the course of practice, then initial disclosure may be the required course of action in the future. 8 1 allowed to use force as necessary to maintain the safety and security of the prison institution, 2 consistent with use of force policies in place at the institution and with their training. Yes, I know that 3 it is a violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3268.1 et. seq. for a correctional 4 officer not to report a use of force upon an inmate by another correctional officer. 5 Ruling: 6 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Defendant Marshall’s supplemental response was 7 sufficient to respond to the interrogatory because it adequately set forth the Defendant’s knowledge of 8 the applicable law. 9 d. Interrogatory Number 19 10 “On or before 7-16-2009, did you know it was a violation of a inmate’s constitutional rights 11 under the Eight Amendmend [sic] for a correctional officer to squeeze a pair of handcuffs around a 12 inmates wrists extremely tight and refuse to loosen them?” 13 Response: 14 Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, calls for 15 speculation and is vague as to the terms “a correctional officer to squeeze a pair of handcuffs around a 16 inmates wrists extremely tight and refuse to loosen them.” Without waiving said objections, 17 Defendant responds: Correctional officers are taught to place handcuffs on inmates, and check the 18 handcuffs to ensure the cuffs are not too tight by sliding their index finger between the handcuffs and 19 the inmate’s wrist. 20 Plaintiff’s Objection to Response: 21 Plaintiff contended that Defendant Marshall failed to respond to the simple and direct question 22 and seeks to eliminate the unnecessary rhetoric. 23 Supplemental Response: 24 Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it calls for a legal opinion, assumes facts not in 25 evidence, calls for speculation and is vague as to the terms “a correctional officer to squeeze a pair of 26 handcuffs around a inmates wrists extremely tight and refuse to loosen them.” Without waiving said 27 objections, Defendant responds: Correctional officers are taught to place handcuffs on inmates, and 28 check the handcuffs to ensure the cuffs are not too tight by sliding their index finger between the 9 1 handcuffs and the inmate’s writs. If the handcuffs are too tight, an inmate can feel discomfort or pain. 2 I know that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment to use force on an inmate with the intent of 3 causing serious bodily injury. 4 Ruling: 5 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Defendant Marshall’s supplemental response is 6 sufficient to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatory by setting forth Defendant’s knowledge of the law. 7 e. 8 “What are the name(s) of previous lawsuits you have been named as a Defendant in?” (Pl.’s 9 Interrogatory Number 22 (Set One) Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. D. at 46.) 10 Response: 11 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, burdensome, 12 irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. No 13 response will be provided. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. D at 47.) 14 Plaintiff’s Objection to Response: 15 Plaintiff argues he is entitled to a “truthful” response because Defendant Marshall is 16 “pretending to be an innocent and conscientious officer.” 17 Ruling: 18 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant Wildey cannot plausibly claim that he not 19 aware of the names of previous lawsuits where he was named a defendant, and Defendant makes no 20 specific showing of the details of the diligent search which he claims he conducted. Accordingly, 21 Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is granted. 22 4. Request for Admission-Defendant Wildey 23 A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending 24 action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to facts, the application 25 of law to fact, or opinions about either, and the genuineness of any described documents. Fed. R. Civ. 26 P. 36(a). 27 /// 28 /// 10 1 a. Request for Admission Number 39 (Set One) 2 “While employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), 3 you have had medical training, which could assist you in, making a credible medical determination 4 when dealing with inmates.” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. C at 35.) 5 Response: 6 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague as to the terms “medical 7 training, which could assist you in, making a credible medical determination when dealing with 8 inmates,” and subject matter. Based on this objection, Defendant cannot answer the request as 9 phrased. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. C at 35.) 10 Plaintiff’s Objection to Response: 11 Plaintiff argues that Defendant Wildey refused to respond to this request for admission, but 12 13 gave a “medical” type answer to another request for admission in number 37. In his motion to compel, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Wildey’s failure to timely respond to 14 this request for admission results in the automatic admission of the matters requested pursuant to 15 Rule 36(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff further argues Defendant Wildey 16 should be compelled at the very minimum to give a further response to this request for admission. 17 Ruling: 18 Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to this request for admission is denied. As an initial 19 matter, Plaintiff provides no authority to support his contention that Defendant Wildey provided a 20 “medical” type response to request for admission number 37, by responding: “Defendant objects to 21 this request on the grounds that it calls for an opinion that this Defendant is not qualified to opine on, 22 and therefore seeks irrelevant information not likely to lead to admissible evidence. Defendant 23 further objects on the grounds that this request is an incomplete hypothetical. Defendant further 24 objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation and is vague as to the term ‘severe 25 pain.’ Without waiving said objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that the 26 application of handcuffs can cause discomfort if the handcuffs are applied so tightly that they 27 constrict blood flow to the wrist.” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. C at 35.) Defendant 28 11 1 correctly acknowledges that his response to this request is based on general knowledge, i.e. if a 2 person’s body part is squeezed too tight, blood flow can be constricted. 3 The term “medical training” is vague as medical training encompasses a wide array of 4 specialties, ranging from basic CPR training to a medical degree. Plaintiff’s request is also vague as 5 to the terms “making a credible medical determination when dealing with inmates,” because this type 6 of situation can involve a variety of possible circumstances. The Court is unable to determine the 7 exact nature of the request as Plaintiff was not sufficiently specific in his request. Accordingly, the 8 Court will not require a further response to this request for admission, and Plaintiff’s motion to 9 compel is denied. 10 III. 11 ORDER 12 Based on the foregoing, 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to Interrogatory Number 25 as to 15 Defendant Wildey and Interrogatory Number 22 as to Defendant Marshall. Defendants 16 are ordered to respond to such interrogatories within thirty days from the date of service 17 of this order; and 18 2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED in all other respects. 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 6, 2014 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 12
]]>
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.
