(PC) Masterson v. Killen et al, No. 1:2011cv01179 - Document 79 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 69 Motion to Compel and for In Camera Review 69 ; ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 72 Motion to Compel further Discovery Responses and to Extend the Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/11/2015. Dispositive Motion Deadline is: March 16, 2016 (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL MASTERSON, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 Case No. 1:11-cv-01179-DAD-SAB-PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW v. S. KILLEN, et al., (ECF NO. 69) 17 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND TO EXTEND THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION FILING DEADLINE 18 (ECF NO. 72) 19 Dispositive Motion Deadline: March 16, 2016 15 Defendants. 16 20 21 Plaintiff Masterson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 22 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff s 24 motion to compel and for an in camera review (ECF No. 69) and Defendants motion to compel 25 further discovery responses from Plaintiff. (ECF No. 72.) Defendants have opposed Plaintiff s 26 motion to compel and for in camera review (ECF No. 73.) Plaintiff has opposed the motion to 27 compel. (ECF No. 75.) 28 This action proceeds on the November 22, 2013, third amended complaint. (ECF No. 28.) 1 1 The events at issue in this lawsuit arise from events occurring between July 6, 2010 and May 4, 2 2012 at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran (SATF). The gravamen of 3 Plaintiff s complaint is that all of the named defendants participated in a conspiracy to retaliate 4 against him for filing inmate grievances and court cases, in violation of the First Amendment. 5 There are also allegations regarding an escort to the law library on December 17, 2011, and a 6 threat by another inmate (Defendant Killen s inmate clerk) on December 30, 2011. On June 30, 7 2014, an order was entered finding that the Third Amended Complaint stated a claim against 8 Defendants Killen, Rowell, Hall, Fisher, Rodriguez, Santoro, and Tolson for retaliation, and 9 against Defendants Killen, Rowell, Hall, Rodriguez, Santoro and Tolson for conspiracy to 10 retaliate against Plaintiff. The remaining claims and Defendants were dismissed. Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to his Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 11 12 4, 5, 8, 15.1 Defendants also seek an order directing Plaintiff to respond to all of Defendant 13 Killen s interrogatories. Defendants motion is supported by the declaration of counsel. I. 14 Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel and for In Camera Review (ECF No. 69) A. Request No. 1 15 Plaintiff seeks the production of “all documents that contain, mention, construe, or refer 16 17 to any incident that occurred in the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, State Prison, 18 hereafter CSATF-SP, Delta Facility Library on or about December 30, 2011.” Defendants 19 objected on the grounds of vagueness, confidentiality pursuant to California Code of Regulations 20 Title 15, Sections 3321 and 3450. Defendants further asserted the official information privilege 21 under California Evidence Code section 1040 et. seq. Along with their objections, Defendants 22 submitted to Plaintiff a privilege log and supporting declaration. Finally, Defendants responded 23 that to the extent Plaintiff is seeking information contained in his own central file records, such 24 documents are equally available to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is legally entitled to review them. 25 Without waiving objections, Defendant responded by producing non-confidential documents 26 from Plaintiff s central file referencing an incident involving Plaintiff that occurred in the SATF 27 28 1 Plaintiff s Requests for Production of Documents were directed at all seven Defendants. 2 1 Delta Library on December 30, 2011. 2 Relevant documents may be withheld based on the “official information privilege.” The 3 official information privilege is a qualified privilege, which balances the privilege against the 4 probative value of the information sought. Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 655 (N.D. 5 Cal. 1987). Once invoked, the opposing party must show that the balance of interests weighs in 6 his favor, before those privileged documents must be produced. (Id.) In support of their 7 assertion of the privilege, Defendants submit the declaration of Correctional Counselor Barba, 8 the Litigation Coordinator at SATF. Counselor Barba declares that the documents reflecting the 9 confidential, inmate interview and investigation of an incident on December 30, 2011, are kept 10 confidential by the CDCR, and that he has personally reviewed them. (Barba Decl. ¶ 3-4.) 11 Counselor Barba identifies and describes the significant governmental and privacy interests that 12 would be threatened by a disclosure of confidential interview and investigation documents to 13 Plaintiff, as well as how the disclosure of these documents, even subject to a protective order, 14 would still create a substantial risk of harm to those governmental interests. ( Id. at ¶¶ 5-7.) 15 Counselor Barba s declaration also identifies the potential harm that would ensue were the Court 16 to order production of the documents Plaintiff seeks. (Id. at ¶ 7.) 17 Defendants argue that the release of these documents to Plaintiff, a California prisoner, 18 would reveal some of the techniques and methods by which CDCR interviews and investigates 19 inmates regarding confidential enemy allegations, and some of the types of corrective measures 20 that might be taken as a result of these investigations. Prison inmates with this information 21 would have the tools to sabotage staff attempts to deal with disruptive inmate conduct and to 22 undermine investigations into these incidents. Inmates could use this information to make more 23 effective but false accusations against other inmates, and to manipulate staff regarding discipline 24 and/or housing of other inmates. The disclosure would substantially undermine staff s ability to 25 function and control inmate interactions effectively and confidentially and maintain inmate s 26 anonymity. The release of the sensitive documents would also likely impair staff morale, and 27 would also impair well-grounded inmate complaints against staff or other inmates, and the 28 investigations into such complaints. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-7.) 3 1 Counselor Barba s declaration notes each of the relevant considerations set forth in Kelly, 2 114 F.R.D. at 670. Against these considerations, the Court weighs the minimal probative value 3 the documents would offer Plaintiff in attempting to prove his retaliation claims against the 4 Defendants. Plaintiff has already stated in his complaint that he has spoken to the inmate who 5 claimed enemy concerns against Plaintiff and also to the Defendants themselves regarding his 6 retaliation allegations. (Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 28, at ¶¶ 31, 35- 36.) Defendants 7 correctly argue that Plaintiff s speculation regarding what may be contained in these three pages 8 of documents goes far afield of the investigation and conclusion. After an investigation, it was 9 determined that there were valid enemy concerns between Plaintiff and this other inmate, and 10 Plaintiff has been provided with this documentation. 11 Plaintiff s motion to compel fails to show how or why Defendant s objections are 12 insufficient or inadequate and offers no argument that overcomes Defendants assertion of 13 privilege. Defendants properly objected to Plaintiff s request, produced responsive documents, 14 and properly withheld three pages of privileged documents. The Court finds that Defendants 15 responded to Plaintiff s request and properly asserted privilege. Plaintiff s motion to compel 16 additional documents should be denied as to Request No. 1. 17 18 B. Request No. 4 Plaintiff seeks “a copy of any notes, loose pages, records, entries kept by Defendant 19 Killen while assigned to the CSATF-SP Delta [sic] Facility Library that contain, mention, 20 construe, or refer to Plaintiff, including but not limited to correspondence, messages to any other 21 named defendant in this instant action.” Defendants objected on the ground that the request is 22 overbroad and unduly burdensome with regard to scope of time. Defendants also objected “to 23 the extent” that the request called for information that inmates are not permitted to possess und 24 California Code of Regulations, title 15, sections 3450(d) and 3321. Without waiving the 25 objections, Defendants produced all documents in their possession, custody and control 26 responsive to the request. 27 Plaintiff makes no argument that overcomes Defendants assertion of privilege. 28 Defendants asserted privilege, and served Plaintiff with the privilege log. Analyzing the Kelly 4 1 factors above, the Court finds the assertion of privilege to be supported by declaration. Plaintiff 2 makes no argument that justifies an order directing the production of privileged documents. 3 Defendants have produced all responsive, non-privileged documents in their possession. 4 Plaintiff s motion to compel should be denied as to Request No. 4. 5 6 C. Request Nos. 5 and 8 Plaintiff s Requests 5 and 8, respectively, seek “a copy of any and all „Appeal Inquiries 7 for any CDCR-602 Inmate/Parolee Appeal Forms that were submitted/filed by Plaintiff against 8 any listed defendant, that are not available to Plaintiff due to being labeled „Confidential, 9 including but not limited to Inmate/Parolee Appeals labeled as „Staff Complaints for the period 10 relevant to this action.” Plaintiff also seeks “a copy of the total amount of „Staff Complaints 11 filed against each defendant separately, for the period of September 2004 through March 2012.” 12 Essentially, Plaintiff is seeking information that Defendants asserted was confidential. 13 Along with their response asserting the privilege, Defendants served Plaintiff with a privilege log 14 and supporting declaration. Defendants also objected on the ground that the requests were 15 overbroad as to scope because the timeframe is not relevant to this action. 16 Plaintiff fails to make any argument regarding overbreadth. Plaintiff s argument focuses 17 on the Defendants assertion of privilege. Regarding Request No. 5, Plaintiff argues that 18 Defendants are trying to manipulate or take advantage of Plaintiff because he is a pro se prisoner 19 and is unrepresented by counsel. Regardless of whether Plaintiff is represented, he is entitled to 20 non-privileged matter that is relevant to his claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff also 21 argues that he is entitled to this information because he has received this type of information in 22 another lawsuit. That Plaintiff may have received such information in another lawsuit does not 23 entitle Plaintiff to privileged information in this lawsuit. Analyzing the Kelly factors above, the 24 Court finds the assertion of privilege to be supported by declaration. Plaintiff makes no 25 argument that justifies an order directing the production of privileged documents. Plaintiff s 26 motion to compel should be denied as to Request Nos. 5 and 8. 27 28 D. Request No. 15 Defendants note that, pursuant to the amended scheduling order entered on July 16, 2015, 5 1 (ECF No. 55), all discovery was to be completed by October 15, 2015. Responses to discovery 2 served under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 31, 33, 34 and 36 are required within forty-five 3 days of service. Plaintiff served his request after the August 28, 2015 deadline. Plaintiff filed a 4 motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 66), which was denied (ECF No. 68.) 5 Plaintiff s Exhibit 6 indicates that he served request on September 17, 2015. Specifically, the 6 Court denied Plaintiff s request to extend the discovery deadline. Plainti8ff s Request No. 15 is 7 untimely. Plaintiff s motion to compel a response to Request No. 15 should be denied. E. Request for In Camera Review 8 9 Plaintiff s motion compel production of confidential information was denied for the 10 reasons set forth above. Regarding Plaintiff s request for an in camera review and a protective 11 order, in camera review, which are both burdensome and intrusive, are not conducted as a matter 12 of routine, and they are not available to a litigant merely seeking some reassurance regarding an 13 opposing party s discovery response. See U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 569-575 (1989); In re 14 Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff makes no argument that 15 justifies a protective order or the disclosure of confidential information. Plaintiff s motion for in 16 camera review/and or a protective order should be denied. 17 II. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (ECF No. 72) 18 Defendants seek to compel further responses to Defendant Hampson s First Set 19 Interrogatories 1-24 (excluding 19) and Request for Production of Documents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 19. 20 A. Interrogatories 1-24 (Excluding Interrogatory 19) 21 1. Interrogatory 1 22 Interrogatory 1: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendant Fisher violated 23 your Constitutional rights as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff objected on 24 the ground that the request was overbroad as to scope and time and that it was unduly 25 burdensome. Without waiving these objections, Plaintiff “stands by the verified Third Amended 26 Complaint and the stated allegations within.” 27 Plaintiff s objection that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope is overruled. 28 By the terms of the interrogatory, the time and scope is limited to the allegations in the Third 6 1 Amended Complaint. Plaintiff offers no explanation of how responding to the interrogatory is 2 unduly burdensome. Plaintiff s reference to the allegations of the Third Amended Complaint is 3 inappropriate. Plaintiff is required to provide an answer to the interrogatory that is complete in 4 itself and should not refer to pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other 5 interrogatories. See Union Pac. R. Co., 229 F.R.D. 240, 243 (D.N.M. 2005); Davidson v. Goord, 6 215 F.R.D. 73, 77 (W.D.N.Y. 2003); Mulero-Abreu v. P.R. Police Dept, 675 F3d 88, 93 (1st Cir. 7 2012). Defendants motion should be granted as to this interrogatory. Plaintiff is directed to 8 amend his response to Interrogatory No. 1, without reference to any other document or pleading. 9 10 2. Interrogatory No. 2 Interrogatory No. 2: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 11 CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendant Fisher violated your Constitutional 12 rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff objected to the interrogatory as 13 unduly burdensome. Plaintiff also indicates that the question was asked at his deposition and 14 responded to. As noted above, the scope of the interrogatory is limited to the allegations in the 15 Third Amended Complaint. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff may not refer Defendant(s) to 16 allegations in the Third Amended Complaint or to his deposition in order to avoid responding to 17 interrogatories. Plaintiff s objections are overruled. Defendants motion to compel further 18 responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 3. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to 19 Interrogatory No. 2. 20 21 3. Interrogatory No. 3 Interrogatory No. 3: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendant Hall violated 22 your Constitutional rights as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff asserts the 23 same objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff s objections are 24 overruled. Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 3. 25 Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 3. 26 27 4. Interrogatory No 4 Interrogatory No. 4: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 28 CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendant Hall violated your Constitutional rights, 7 1 as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff asserts the same objection as he did for 2 Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff s objections are overruled. Defendants 3 motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 4. Plaintiff is directed to 4 amend his response to Interrogatory No. 3. 5 6 5. Interrogatory No. 5 Interrogatory No. 5: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendant Hampson 7 (nee Rowell) violated your Constitutional rights as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” 8 Plaintiff asserts the same objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same 9 reasons, Plaintiff s objections are overruled. Defendants motion to compel further responses is 10 granted as to Interrogatory No. 5. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory 11 No. 5. 12 13 6. Interrogatory No. 6 Interrogatory No. 6: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 14 CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendant Hampson (nee Rowell) violated your 15 Constitutional rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff asserts the same 16 objections as he did with Interrogatory No. 2, as well as an objection that the interrogatory is 17 premature as Plaintiff continues to engage in discovery and research. Plaintiff indicates that he is 18 providing declarations of witnesses in response to Defendant Rowell s Request for Production of 19 Documents, Set One. As noted above, Plaintiff s responses to interrogatories must be complete 20 in and of themselves, without reference to any other response to discovery. Plaintiff s objection 21 that the discovery is premature is overruled. Plaintiff must respond to Interrogatory No. 6. If 22 Plaintiff is aware of a witness, he must say so. If he is unaware of any witnesses, he must so 23 indicate in his response. Defendants motion to compel further responses to discovery is granted 24 as to Interrogatory No. 6. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 6. 25 26 7. Interrogatory No. 7 Interrogatory No. 7: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendant Killen 27 violated your Constitutional rights as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff 28 asserts the same objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff s 8 1 objections are overruled. Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted as to 2 Interrogatory No. 7. 3 4 Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 7. 8. Interrogatory No. 8 Interrogatory No. 8: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 5 CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendant Killen violated your Constitutional 6 rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff asserts the same objections as he 7 did for Interrogatory No. 6. For the same reasons, Plaintiff s objections are overruled. 8 Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 8. Plaintiff 9 is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 8. 10 11 9. Interrogatory No. 9 Interrogatory No. 9: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendant Rodriguez 12 violated your Constitutional rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff 13 asserts the same objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff s 14 objections are overruled. Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted as to 15 Interrogatory No. 9. 16 17 Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 9. 10. Interrogatory No. 10 Interrogatory No. 10: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 18 CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendant Rodriguez violated your Constitutional 19 rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff asserts the same objection as he 20 did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff s objections are overruled. 21 Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 10. Plaintiff 22 is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 10. 23 24 11. Interrogatory No. 11 Interrogatory No. 11: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendant Santoro 25 violated your Constitutional rights as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff 26 asserts the same objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff s 27 objections are overruled. Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted as to 28 Interrogatory No. 11. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 11. 9 1 2 12. Interrogatory No. 12 Interrogatory No. 12: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 3 CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendant Santoro violated your Constitutional 4 rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff asserts the same objections as 5 he did for Interrogatory No. 6. For the same reasons, Plaintiff s objections are overruled. 6 Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 12. Plaintiff 7 is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 12. 8 9 13. Interrogatory No. 13 Interrogatory No. 13: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendant Tolson 10 violated your Constitutional rights as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff 11 responded to Interrogatory 13 by referring to the response given to Interrogatory No. 11, which 12 is a verbatim response to Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff s objections are 13 overruled. Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 14 13. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 13. 15 16 14. Interrogatory No. 14 Interrogatory No. 14: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 17 CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendant Tolson violated your Constitutional 18 rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff responded to Interrogatory 14 by 19 referring to the response given in to Interrogatory 12. In that response, Plaintiff asserts the same 20 objections as he did for Interrogatory 6. For the same reasons, Plaintiff s objections are 21 overruled. Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 14. 22 Plaintiff is directed to amend response to Interrogatory No. 14. 23 24 15. Interrogatory No. 15 Interrogatory No. 15: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendants conspired to 25 violate your Constitutional rights as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff 26 asserts the same objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff s 27 objections are overruled. Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted as to 28 Interrogatory No. 15. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 15. 10 16. Interrogatory No. 16 1 2 Interrogatory No. 16: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 3 CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendants conspired to violate your Constitutional 4 rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff objected to this interrogatory on 5 the ground that it is vague and repetitive. Plaintiff referred to his response to Interrogatory No. 6 12. Plaintiff s response to Interrogatory 12 is identical to his response to Interrogatory No. 6. 7 For the same reasons, Plaintiff s objections are overruled. Defendants motion to compel further 8 responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 16. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to 9 Interrogatory No. 16. 17. Interrogatory No. 17 10 11 Interrogatory No. 17: “Identify all inmate job assignments and/or positions, paid or 12 unpaid, that you have been assigned from January 1, 2005, to the present, including the dates and 13 the length you held each position.” Plaintiff objects on the ground that it is unduly burdensome 14 and repetitive. Plaintiff claims that Defendants themselves have produced this information. 15 Plaintiff further objects that the information is equally available to Defendants and are legally 16 entitled to review the information in Plaintiff s Central File. Defendants note that Plaintiff 17 testified during his deposition that he had various objections to the information contained in his 18 work assignment history, the very same document he claims to have provided in his responses, 19 but did not actually attach. (Mayer Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff is required to provide responses that are 20 complete in themselves. See Union Pac. R. Co., 229 F.R.D. at 243; Davidson, 215 F.R.D. at 77; 21 Mulero-Abreu, 675 F.3d at 93. Plaintiff s objections are overruled. Defendants motion to 22 compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 17. Plaintiff is directed to amend his 23 response to Interrogatory No. 17. 24 25 18. Interrogatory No. 18 Interrogatory No. 18: “Identify the reason you were unassigned or reassigned from each 26 job assignment and/or position listed in your response to Interrogatory No. 17.” Plaintiff s 27 objections to this interrogatory are the same as his objections to Interrogatory 17. The objections 28 are overruled for the same reason. Defendants motion to compel further responses should be 11 1 granted as to Interrogatory 18. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory 18. 2 3 19. Interrogatory No. 20 Interrogatory No. 20: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 4 CDCR number) that were present on January 27, 2011 when Defendant Rowell informed you 5 “that she and Defendant Killen were well aware that [you were] preparing and planning to file a 6 § 1983 lawsuit against them, and therefore it was necessary for her and other defendants to have 7 a „collusion between them, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff objects on 8 the ground that Defendants only provided him a redacted copy of the library attendance log in 9 their discovery responses. Plaintiff indicates that the witness names and CDCR numbers were 10 blacked out, preventing Plaintiff from responding to this interrogatory. Defendants note that the 11 library logs Plaintiff refers to indicate that Plaintiff was not in the library on January 27, 2011, 12 therefore, the redacted information should have no bearing on his ability to respond to this 13 question. (Mayer Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also objects, as he did above, that the information was 14 provided to defense counsel during his deposition. As noted, this is an improper objection, and 15 is overruled. Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 16 20. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 20. 17 18 20. Interrogatory No. 21 Interrogatory No. 21: “Identify the „other defendants you allege Defendant Rowell 19 colluded with, as alleged in Paragraph 8 of your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff asserts 20 the same objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff s objections 21 are overruled. Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 22 21. 23 24 Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 21. 21. Interrogatory No. 22 Interrogatory No. 22: “Describe with specificity any interaction or communication, 25 written or verbal, you had with Defendant Fisher on July 13, 2011” Plaintiff asserts the same 26 objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff s objections are 27 overruled. Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 22. 28 Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 22. 12 1 2 22. Interrogatory No. 23 Interrogatory No. 23: “Provide the name of the Officer that escorted you to the Facility D 3 Library on December 17, 2011, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff s 4 response: “There were two (2) Correctional Officers that escorted Plaintiff and two other 5 prisoners, however, at this time Plaintiff can only provide one of the two Officers names, which 6 Defendant Killen herself named in one of her numerous retaliatory CDC 128-A Disciplinary 7 Chronos dated December 17, 2011. Correctional Officer D. Espinoza. Defendant Killen herself 8 may be able to provide the other Officers name if asked by Counsel.” The burden of providing 9 information responsive to this request is on Plaintiff. Plaintiff must respond fully and completely 10 to the interrogatory. Defendants are entitled to discover what Plaintiff claims will support his 11 allegations. Plaintiff is reminded that he must supplement his interrogatory responses if relevant 12 information is subsequently discovered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e)(1)(A). Plaintiff s objections are 13 overruled as to Interrogatory No. 23. Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted 14 as to Interrogatory No. 23. 15 16 Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 23. 23. Interrogatory No. 24 Interrogatory No. 24: “Provide the names of each housing unit staff that searched your 17 cell and confiscated your personal property on December 27, 2011, based on orders from 18 Defendant Killen, as alleged in Paragraph 23 of your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff 19 responds that the information is available to Defendants by looking through his housing unit 20 records or by asking Defendant Killen. As noted above, Plaintiff may not shift the burden of 21 response to Defendants. For the reasons the Court overruled Plaintiff s objections to 22 Interrogatory No. 23, it does so here. Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted 23 as to Interrogatory No. 24. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 24. 24 B. Defendant Killen’s Interrogatories 25 Defendants contend that Plaintiff responded to only one of Defendant Killen s 26 Interrogatories. In his opposition, Plaintiff refers to Defendants Exhibit C to their motion to 27 compel (ECF No. 72-3.) Exhibit C indicates that Plaintiff responded to Defendant Killen s 28 Interrogatory No. 1. That interrogatory sought the names of the two correctional officers that 13 1 escorted Plaintiff to the Delta Facility Library on December 17, 2011, as alleged in the Third 2 Amended Complaint. Plaintiff objected on the ground that the same question was answered in 3 Defendant Hampson s First Set of Interrogatories, Number 23. Plaintiff also objects on the 4 ground that Defendant Killen could find the information herself in one of the disciplinary 5 chronos she authored. Without waiving objections, Plaintiff identified one of the officers. 6 Regarding the remaining interrogatories, Plaintiff offers no argument that excuses his request to 7 respond to them. Defendants motion should therefore be granted. Plaintiff must respond to all 8 of Defendant Killen s interrogatories, and may not object on any of the grounds that he did in 9 Interrogatory No. 1. Plaintiff has the burden of asserting a valid objection of providing an 10 answer under oath. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). That the information could be found elsewhere, or 11 has been asked by another Defendant, is not a valid objection. Defendants motion to compel 12 further responses to Defendant Killen s interrogatories is granted. Plaintiff must respond to all 13 of Defendant Killen s interrogatories. 14 C. Requests For Production of Documents 15 Defendants seek responses to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 19. 16 17 1. Request No. 1 Request No. 1 seeks “any and all inmate appeals, 602s, grievances, or other documents 18 related to the claims in your lawsuit.” Plaintiff objects on the grounds that the request is 19 overbroad and compound as to the scope and vague as to “other documents,” and consists of up 20 to or more than a thousand pages. Plaintiff also refers Defendants to his Central File. Plaintiff s 21 objections are overruled. The scope of the request is limited to the allegations in the Third 22 Amended Complaint. A list of all of Plaintiff s inmate appeals does not disclose which of these 23 appeals Plaintiff claims are relevant to the claims in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is obligated to 24 produce responsive documents or identify the responsive documents and where they are located. 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). A simple reference to Plaintiff s Central File is not responsive to 26 the request. Defendants motion compel further responses is granted as to Defendants Request 27 for Production of Documents No. 1. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Request for 28 Production of Documents No. 1. 14 1 2 2. Request No. 2 Request No. 2 seeks “any and all letters, responses to any of your letters, grievances, or 3 inmate appeals submitted in connection with the subject matter of this lawsuit.” Plaintiff objects 4 on the ground that s that the documents are considered confidential as “work product” and as 5 correspondence with a member or members of the Bar. 6 Plaintiff s Central File. Plaintiff also refers the Court to Defendants correctly note that the work product doctrine protects 7 documents prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, by or for the party, such as, trial 8 preparation that reveal an attorney s strategy, intended lines of proof, evaluation of strengths and 9 weaknesses, and inferences drawn from interviews. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3); Hickman v. Taylor, 10 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947). Defendants, and the court, cannot assess the validity of whether 11 particular relevant documents were generated solely for the purpose of litigation because 12 Plaintiff did not identify and describe the documents in a privilege log, as required by Fed. R. 13 Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Plaintiff s argument that documents are somehow privileged because he sent 14 them to a member of the state bar is without merit. Hickman, 329 U.S. at 511. Defendants 15 motion to compel a response to Request No. 2 is granted. Plaintiff is directed to either produce 16 the requested documents or produce a privilege log describing the documents in a manner that 17 will enable Defendants to assess the claim. Fed. R. Civ. P., 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). 18 19 3. Request No. 3 Request No. 3 seeks “any and all documents that support your claim that the Defendants 20 individually or jointly violated your Constitutional rights.” Plaintiff argues that the request is 21 vague and overbroad in scope. As with the Plaintiff s other requests, this objection is overruled. 22 The scope of the request is limited to the allegations of the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff 23 also refers to Defendants to the Third Amended Complaint. For the reasons stated above, 24 Plaintiff s objections are overruled. Defendants motion to compel further responses is granted 25 as to Request No. 3. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended response to Request for Production 26 of Documents No. 3. 27 28 4. Request No. 4 Request No. 4 seeks “any and all documents that support your claim that Defendants 15 1 conspired to violate your civil rights.” Plaintiff s objection is identical to his objection to 2 Request No. 3. The objections are overruled for the same reasons. Defendants motion to 3 compel further responses is granted as to Request No. 4. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended 4 response to Request for Production of Documents No. 4. 5. Request No. 6 5 6 Request No. 6 seeks “all personal notes, diaries, journals, or calendars referencing the 7 subject matter of this lawsuit from July 1, 2010 to the present.” Plaintiff objects that the request 8 is overbroad and compound, and seeks production of documents that are deemed confidential 9 under the work product doctrine. For the reasons stated in Request No. 2, Plaintiffs objections 10 are overruled. Defendants motion to compel a further response to Request No. 6 is granted. 11 Plaintiff is directed to either produce the requested documents or produce a privilege log 12 describing the documents in a manner that will enable Defendants to assess the claim. Fed. R. 13 Civ. P., 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). 6. Request No. 19 14 15 Request No. 19 seeks “all documents supporting your contention that you had a 16 conversation with Inmate Berry on the evening of February 3, 2012.” Plaintiff s response 17 follows: “Plaintiff objects to defendants wording of „contention as the allegation is fact. 18 Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that defendants are making an assumption.” Defendants 19 correctly argue that Plaintiff s objection to Request No. 19 is not a valid objection. If Plaintiff is 20 in possession of documents responsive to this request, he must produce them. If he does not, he 21 should so respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). Plaintiff s objections are overruled. 22 Defendants motion to compel a further response to Request No. 19 is granted. Plaintiff is 23 directed to amend his response to Request for Production of Documents No. 19. 24 III. Modification of Scheduling Order 25 Defendants seek a modification of the dispositive motion filing deadline on the ground 26 that they require Plaintiff s supplemental responses to their discovery requests in order to prepare 27 a dispositive motion. Good cause appearing, Defendants request is granted. 28 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1 1. Plaintiff s motion to compel and for in camera review (ECF No. 69) is DENIED; 2 2. Defendants motion to compel further discovery responses (ECF No. 72) is 3 GRANTED. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants Hampson s First Set of 4 Interrogatories 1-24 (excluding 19), Defendant Killen s First Set of Interrogatories, 5 and Defendants Request For Production of Documents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 19 within 45 6 days of the date of service of this order; 7 3. Discovery in this matter is otherwise closed; and 8 4. Defendants motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 72) is GRANTED. The dispositive motion filing deadline is extended to March 16, 2016. 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: December 11, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17
]]>
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.
