(PC) Harris v. German et al, No. 1:2015cv01462 - Document 83 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING Defendants' 66 Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/24/19. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEVONTE HARRIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. 1:15-cv-01462-DAD-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 66.) HUMBERTO GERMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Devonte Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with the First 20 Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on March 14, 2016, against defendants Correctional 21 Officer (C/O) Humberto German, C/O Philip Holguin, and C/O R. Burnitzki (collectively, 22 “Defendants”), for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and, against 23 defendant C/O Philip Holguin for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 8.) 24 On April 25, 2019, the court issued a scheduling order setting a deadline of August 30, 25 2019, for completion of discovery, including the filing of motions to compel and a deadline of 26 October 30, 2019, for filing dispositive motions.1 (ECF No. 65.) 27 28 1 On October 15, 2019, the deadlines were extended to December 18, 2019, for completion of discovery (for limited purpose), and February 18, 2020, for filing dispositive motions. (ECF No. 80.) 1 1 On June 24, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to compel further responses to 2 interrogatories. (ECF No. 66.) On August 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. 3 (ECF No. 70.) On August 22, 2019, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 71.) Defendants’ motion 4 to compel is now before the court. Local Rule 230(l). 5 II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS 6 A. 7 The events at issue in the First Amended Complaint allegedly occurred at Corcoran State 8 9 Allegations Prison (CSP) in Corcoran, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there. Plaintiff’s allegations follow. 10 On February 24, 2011, Plaintiff was housed in the Security Housing Unit (SHU). At 11 about 1:15 p.m., C/Os were releasing prisoners to the exercise modules. C/Os German, Holguin, 12 Menzie [not a defendant], Lovelady [not a defendant], and Botello [not a defendant] skipped 13 Plaintiff’s cell during yard, and then ignored him when he called them to ask why. C/O Womack 14 [not a defendant] was working in the control booth. C/Os German and Holguin came back and 15 released Plaintiff for yard last. Plaintiff stripped out and C/O German kept asking him, “What’s 16 the problem?” C/O German continued to hold Plaintiff’s clothing as he stood naked, apparently 17 expecting an answer. Plaintiff said, “I’m done stripping out, can I have my clothes back?” 18 Plaintiff got dressed and C/O German handcuffed him. As they escorted Plaintiff to the yard, 19 C/O Holguin placed Plaintiff against the wall by the exit door of the building and began pressing 20 him up against the wall. C/O German said, “You are getting your yard, so what’s the problem?” 21 Plaintiff said that C/O Holguin was pressing him hard into the wall unnecessarily. C/O German 22 said shut up or you are not going to receive yard. Plaintiff said he knows the law and has family 23 who care, so he doesn’t care what they do. German said shut up and don’t talk. They exited the 24 building and walked towards the yard cages. Sgt. Martinez [not a defendant] saw them from the 25 track holding Plaintiff aggressively and asked, “What’s going on?” Plaintiff began to tell him 26 and C/O German jerked Plaintiff to a standstill and said, “I thought I told you not to talk.” At 27 seeing this Sgt. Martinez said to just escort Plaintiff back to his cell. Upon entering the building, 28 German and Holguin slammed Plaintiff’s face into the divider of their office window. Holguin 2 1 held Plaintiff’s face sideways against the window. German kicked Plaintiff’s legs apart making 2 him do the splits. Holguin shouted, “Fuck the law and fuck your family.” German said, “What 3 you wanna do?” over and over. C/O German threatened to take Plaintiff to the ground. Sgt. 4 Martinez, C/O Menzie, C/O Lovelady, and C/O Botello entered the building. C/O Womack 5 witnessed this from the control booth. They did nothing nor said nothing while Holguin had 6 Plaintiff’s face pressed against the window, and German had Plaintiff’s legs unnaturally spread 7 apart. Plaintiff said he just wanted to go to yard, and German said, “You are not going to yard, 8 so where do you want to go, back to your cell?” Plaintiff said he wanted to talk to the Lieutenant 9 for an excessive force interview. Martinez said, “You’ll get what you got coming, you’ll get 10 your excessive force interview.” German and Holguin escorted Plaintiff back to his cell. Plaintiff 11 suffered knots on his forehead, a swollen cheek, pain in his neck, pain on the right side of his 12 chest, and pain in the small of his back. 13 On February 26, 2011, Sergeant Hubbard [not a defendant] interviewed Plaintiff and 14 documented his injuries on video. Sergeant Rasley [not a defendant] operated the video camera. 15 Plaintiff was medically evaluated by a nurse. On February 27, 2011, an RN evaluated Plaintiff. 16 On February 29, 2011, another RN evaluated him. On March 10, 2011, German denied Plaintiff 17 his breakfast in retaliation for the excessive force allegations Plaintiff made against him. German 18 refused Plaintiff’s inmate request form asking why. 19 On April 18, 2011, C/O Cordova [not a defendant] and C/O Borgess [not a defendant] 20 retaliated against Plaintiff for the allegations he made against their coworkers German and 21 Holguin. They denied Plaintiff breakfast and lunch and then falsified his segregation record 22 saying they had delivered both to Plaintiff. Later that morning, C/O Menzie [not a defendant] 23 escorted the nurse. When the nurse delivered his medication, Plaintiff held the food port on his 24 cell and told Menzie he wanted to see the Sergeant about his breakfast and lunch being withheld. 25 Menzie continued escorting the nurse. Holguin came to Plaintiff’s cell to see if he wanted to go 26 to a disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff refused because he was holding the food port. Holguin 27 summoned Sergeant Martinez who ordered Holguin to pepper spray Plaintiff to secure the food 28 port. Holguin pepper sprayed Plaintiff, and Plaintiff released the food port and went to the middle 3 1 of his cell, turning his back. Holguin put his pepper spray through the food port and began 2 spraying Plaintiff in the back of his head, neck, and back. Plaintiff suffered severe burning 3 sensations and chest pain. Borgess and another C/O escorted Plaintiff to the hospital to be 4 evaluated. Borgess and Cordova doctored Plaintiff’s segregation records to falsely report that he 5 had refused his breakfast and lunch. Plaintiff was moved to a different housing unit in the SHU. 6 At some point, Hubbard and Rasley destroyed the video documenting Plaintiff’s injuries 7 while they were still visible on February 26, 2011. Plaintiff filed a prison appeal. On May 16, 8 2011, two sergeants took another videotaped interview of Plaintiff, but his injuries had already 9 healed. They claimed to have lost the February 26, 2011 video. 10 On August 28, 2011, C/O Holguin and C/O Pano [not a defendant] came to Plaintiff’s 11 housing unit to escort him to the yard. They conducted an unclothed body search and then 12 handcuffed Plaintiff behind his back and began walking outside toward the yard cages. Holguin 13 told Plaintiff to pull up his boxers, which was impossible because Plaintiff was handcuffed 14 behind his back. Plaintiff told Holguin to pull his eyes up. Holguin then began escorting Plaintiff 15 to the rotunda of his housing unit. There was a cage located there and while guiding Plaintiff 16 into it, Holguin shoved Plaintiff into the wall causing pain in his shoulder. Holguin then secured 17 the cage and left. C/O Lovelady and C/O Burnitzki walked by and asked Plaintiff what was 18 going on. Plaintiff said that Holguin had used excessive force against him and the Sergeant 19 should be notified. They took no action regarding this matter. Afterward, Holguin came to the 20 rotunda to take Plaintiff back to his cell when yard time was over. Holguin, Burnitzki and C/O 21 Leal [not a defendant] took Plaintiff to his cell but did not have the control booth C/O close the 22 cell door. They came all the way into the cell with Plaintiff. Burnitzki and Holguin began 23 pushing Plaintiff back and forth to each other several times. Holguin then pushed Plaintiff into 24 the wall, jammed his left arm into Plaintiff’s back, and used his right hand to press Plaintiff’s 25 face against the wall while Burnitzki pulled on the handcuffs from behind. Holguin told Plaintiff, 26 “You’re not hit, you are going to stop disrespecting me and I don’t care about any lawsuit.” 27 Plaintiff said he did not disrespect him. Holguin was mad because he was under investigation 28 by internal affairs for previously using excessive force against Plaintiff. Burnitzki then said, 4 1 “Internal affairs are not going to do shit.” Holguin said next time they are going to really hurt 2 him. Holguin then pulled Plaintiff by the handcuffs to the cell door and took his handcuffs off. 3 Plaintiff requests monetary and declaratory relief. 4 B. 5 6 7 Plaintiff’s Claims – Legal Standards 1. Excessive Force On September 11, 2017, the court found that Plaintiff states cognizable claims for use of excessive force against defendants Holguin, German, and Burnetzski. (ECF No. 21.) 8 “What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual 9 Punishments Clause [of the Eighth Amendment] depends upon the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson 10 v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). “The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim 11 is . . . contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency.” Id. (internal quotation 12 marks and citations omitted). The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always 13 violates contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is 14 evident. Id. at 9; see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (Eighth Amendment 15 excessive force standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis injuries)). However, 16 not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.” Id. at 9. 17 “The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments necessarily excludes 18 from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force 19 is not of a sort ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.’” Id. at 9-10 (internal quotations marks 20 and citations omitted). 21 “[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation 22 of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was 23 applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to 24 cause harm.” Id. at 7. “In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it 25 may also be proper to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that 26 need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, 27 and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Id. (internal quotation marks 28 5 1 and citations omitted). “The absence of serious injury is . . . relevant to the Eighth Amendment 2 inquiry, but does not end it.” Id. 3 2. 4 5 Retaliation On September 11, 2017, the court found that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for retaliation against defendant Holguin. (ECF No. 21.) 6 Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to 7 petition the government may support a § 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th 8 Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. 9 Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First 10 Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some 11 adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that 12 such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action 13 did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 14 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); 15 Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009). 16 An allegation of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment right to file a prison 17 grievance is sufficient to support a claim under § 1983. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th 18 Cir. 2003). The court must “‘afford appropriate deference and flexibility’ to prison officials in 19 the evaluation of proffered legitimate penological reasons for conduct alleged to be retaliatory.” 20 Pratt, 65 F.3d at 807 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 (1995)). The 21 burden is on Plaintiff to demonstrate “that there were no legitimate correctional purposes 22 motivating the actions he complains of.” Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808. 23 III. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 24 Legal Standards -- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b), 33(a), and 37(a) 25 Under Rule 26(b), “[U]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is 26 as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to 27 any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance 28 of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to 6 1 relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 2 issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 3 Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be 4 discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 5 Under Rule 33(a), “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may 6 serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into 8 under Rule 26(b), and [a]n interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion 9 or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2) 10 (quotation marks omitted). Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be 11 answered separately and fully in writing under oath, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and the grounds for 12 objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Davis v. 13 Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981). Any ground not stated in a timely objection is 14 waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(c). The 15 responding party shall use common sense and reason. E.g., Collins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 16 06-2466-CM-DJW, 2008 WL 924935, *8 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2008). 17 interrogatories cannot limit his answers to matters within his own knowledge and ignore 18 information immediately available to him or under his control. Essex Builders Group, Inc. v. 19 Amerisure Insurance Co., 230 F.R.D. 682, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2005). A responding party is not 20 generally required to conduct extensive research in order to answer an interrogatory, but a 21 reasonable effort to respond must be made. Gorrell v. Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 629, 629 (E.D. Cal. 22 Apr. 5, 2013); L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, No. S-06-2042 LKK GGH, 2007 WL 2781132, *2 (E.D. 23 Cal. Sep. 21, 2007). If a party cannot furnish details, he should say so under oath and say why 24 and set forth the efforts used to obtain the information, and cannot plead ignorance to information 25 that is from sources within his control. Milner v. National School of Health Technology, 73 26 F.R.D. 628, 632 (E.D. Pa. 1977). “However, where the answer states that no record exists, the 27 court cannot compel the impossible.” Id. at 633 (citing Moss v. Lane Co., 50 F.R.D. 122, 128 28 (W.D. Va. 1970), aff’d in part, remanded in part, 471 F.2d 853 (4th Cir. 1973)). A sworn answer 7 A party answering 1 indicating a lack of knowledge and no means of obtaining knowledge is not objectionable. 2 Milner, 73 F.R.D. at 633 (citing Brennan v. Glenn Falls Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 19 F.R.Serv.2d 3 721, 722-23 (N.D.N.Y. 1974)). The responding party has a duty to supplement any responses if 4 the information sought is later obtained or the response provided needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. 5 P. 26(e)(1)(A). 6 Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party seeking discovery may 7 move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. 8 P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or 9 incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have 10 ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule 11 of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 12 Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). Generally, if the 13 responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel bears the burden of 14 demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV S–10– 15 2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02–cv– 16 05646–AWI–SMS (PC), 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the 17 moving party to inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to 18 compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why the 19 responding party’s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack v. 20 Virga, No. CIV S–11–1030 MCE EFB P., 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011). 21 IV. INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES AT ISSUE2 22 Defendant German’s Interrogatory No. 8: 23 Describe all injuries that you have ever sustained to your neck, shoulder, face, back, and 24 left arm prior to February 24, 2011. 25 /// 26 27 Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories from defendants German, Holguin, and Burnitzki, dated May 25, 2018, can be found at ECF No. 66-2 at 5-40 (Exhs. A, B, & C.)) Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to the Interrogatories at issue, dated June 3, 2019, can be found at ECF No. 66-2 at 130-141 (Exh. N.)) 2 28 8 1 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Defendant German’s Interrogatory No. 8: 2 Objection. Vague as to “injury.” Plaintiff cannot reasonably list every nick to his face 3 from shaving, etc. It’s overly broad and unduly burdensome to list every “injury” to face, back, 4 shoulder, neck and left arm from birth to 2/24/11. It is also irrelevant because Plaintiff is entitled 5 to full compensation for all damage proximately resulting from defendants’ acts, even though his 6 injuries may have been aggravated by reason of his preexisting physical or mental condition. 7 Henderson v. U.S., 328 F.2d 502 (5th Cir. 1964). 8 /// Defendant German’s Interrogatory No. 9: 9 10 For all injuries described in your response to Interrogatory No. 8, describe any care you 11 received for those injuries. For each instance, provide the dates of care or treatment by any health 12 care practitioner, the name of each health care practitioner providing such treatment, and the 13 address where each named health care practitioner man be located. 14 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Defendant German’s Interrogatory No. 9: 15 Objection. Vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant for reasons described 16 in supplemental response to interrogatory No. 8. 17 /// 18 Defendant German’s Interrogatory No. 10: 19 Describe all interaction or communication with Defendant German prior to February 24, 20 2011. For each instance, provide the dates of such interaction or communication and state 21 whether any communication was verbal or written. 22 Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant German’s Interrogatory No. 10: 23 Objection. Vague as to “interaction” or “communication.” Furthermore, Defendant 24 worked in plaintiff’s building for months. It would be overly broad and unduly burdensome 25 listing every time he served my breakfast tray, picked up my trash, escorted me to yard, library, 26 etc. 27 /// 28 /// 9 1 Defendant German’s Interrogatory No. 11: 2 Describe all interaction or communication with Defendant German after February 24, 3 2011. For each instance, provide the dates of such interaction and communication and state 4 whether any communication was verbal or written. 5 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Defendant German’s Interrogatory No. 11: 6 “Objection. Vague and unduly burdensome and overly broad for same reasons described 7 in supplemental response to interrogatory No. 11. 8 /// Defendant Burnitzki’s Interrogatory No. 8: 9 10 11 Describe all injuries that you have ever sustained to your neck, shoulder, face, back, and left arm prior to August 28, 2011. 12 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Defendant Burnitzki’s Interrogatory No. 8: 13 Objection. Vague as to “injury.” Plaintiff cannot reasonably list every nick to his face 14 from shaving, etc. It’s overly broad and unduly burdensome to list every “injury” to face, back, 15 shoulder, neck and left arm from birth to 2/24/11. It is also irrelevant because Plaintiff is entitled 16 to full compensation for all damage proximately resulting from defendants’ acts, even though his 17 injuries may have been aggravated by reason of his preexisting physical or mental condition. 18 Henderson v. U.S., 328 F.2d 502 (5th Cir. 1964). 19 /// 20 Defendant Burnitzki’s Interrogatory No. 9: 21 For all injuries described in your response to Interrogatory No. 8, describe any care you 22 received for those injuries. For each instance, provide the dates of care or treatment by any health 23 care practitioner, the name of each health care practitioner providing such treatment, and the 24 address where each named health care practitioner man be located. 25 Plaintiff’s Supplmental Response to Defendant Burnitzki’s Interrogatory No. 9: 26 Objection. Vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant for reasons described 27 in supplemental response to interrogatory No. 8. 28 /// 10 1 Defendant Burnitzski’s Interrogatory No. 10: 2 Describe all interaction or communication with Defendant Burnitzki prior to August 28, 3 2011. For each instance, provide the dates of such interaction and communication and state that 4 communication was verbal or written. 5 Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Burnitzski’s Interrogatory No. 10: 6 Objection. Vague as to “interaction” and “communication.” Furthermore, Defendant 7 worked in Plaintiff’s building for months. It would be overly broad and unduly burdensome 8 listing every time he served my breakfast tray, picked up my trash, escorted me to yard, library, 9 etc. 10 /// 11 Defendant Burnitzki’s Interrogatory No. 11: 12 Describe all interaction or communication with Defendant Burnitzki after August 28, 13 2011. For each instance, provide the dates of such interaction and communication and state 14 whether that communication was verbal or written. 15 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Defendant Burnitzki’s Interrogatory No. 11: 16 Objection. Vague and unduly burdensome and overly broad for same reasons described 17 in supplemental response to interrogatory No. 10. 18 /// 19 Defendant Holguin’s Interrogatory No. 9: 20 Describe all injuries that you have ever sustained to your neck, shoulder, face, back, and 21 left arm prior to February 24, 2011. For each instance, provide the dates of care or treatment by 22 each health care practitioner, the name of each health care practitioner, and the address where 23 each health care practitioner is located. 24 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Defendant Holguin’s Interrogatory No. 9: 25 Objection. Vague as to “injury.” Plaintiff cannot reasonably list every nick to his face 26 from shaving, etc. It’s overly broad and unduly burdensome to list every “injury” to face, back, 27 shoulder, neck and left arm from birth to 2/24/11. It is also irrelevant because Plaintiff is entitled 28 to full compensation for all damage proximately resulting from defendants’ acts, even though his 11 1 injuries may have been aggravated by reason of his preexisting physical or mental condition. 2 Henderson v. U.S., 328 F.2d 502 (5th Cir. 1964). 3 /// 4 Defendant Holguin’s Interrogatory No. 10: 5 For all injuries described in your response to Interrogatory No. 9, describe any care you 6 received for those injuries. For each instance, provide the dates of care or treatment by any health 7 care practitioner, the name of each health care practitioner providing such treatment, and the 8 address where each named health care practitioner may be located. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Defendant Holguin’s Interrogatory No. 10: 9 10 Objection. Vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant for reasons described 11 in supplemental response to interrogatory No. 9. 12 /// 13 Defendant Holguin’s Interrogatory No. 11: 14 Describe all interaction or communication with Defendant Holguin prior to February 24, 15 2011. For each instance, provide the dates of such interaction and communication and state 16 whether any communication was verbal or written, 17 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Defendant Holguin’s Interrogatory No. 11: 18 Objection. Vague as to “interaction” or “communication.” Furthermore, Defendant 19 worked in plaintiff’s building for months. It would be overly broad and unduly burdensome 20 listing every time he served my breakfast tray, picked up my trash, escorted me to yard, library, 21 etc. 22 /// 23 V. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 24 Defendants request a court order compelling Plaintiff to respond to several of Defendants’ 25 interrogatories on the ground that Plaintiff’s responses were clearly deficient and he failed to 26 adequately supplement them. On May 25, 2018, Defendants served Plaintiff with written 27 discovery. (Hennes Decl., ECF No. 66-2 at 1 ¶ 2.). After Plaintiff failed to timely respond to 28 this discovery, Defendants moved to compel responses. (ECF No. 38.) This prompted Plaintiff 12 1 to finally provide responses on January 29, 2019, more than seven months after the discovery 2 was originally propounded, prompting Defendants to withdraw their motion to compel. (Hennes 3 Decl., ECF No. 66-2 at 3 ¶ 6.) However, Defendants argue that several of the responses were 4 inadequate, with Plaintiff blatantly refusing to provide any information. After some written 5 attempts to meet and confer, Plaintiff has now served supplemental responses that are again 6 inadequate. 7 As for Plaintiff’s responses to the three identical interrogatories requesting Plaintiff to 8 describe his “injuries,” – Defendant German’s Interrogatory No. 8, Defendant Burnitzki’s 9 Interrogatory No. 8, and Defendant Holguin’s Interrogatory No. 9 – Defendants argue that 10 Plaintiff’s objection is vague and unmeritorious. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s objection 11 demonstrates the relevance of the interrogatory because Plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to 12 damages proximately resulting from Defendants’ actions and alludes to possible preexisting 13 physical or mental conditions, yet he refuses to provide any information about any preexisting 14 injuries. 15 As for Plaintiff’s objections to the three similar interrogatories asking Plaintiff to describe 16 the care he received for his injuries, dates of care, and names and addresses of health care 17 providers – Defendant German’s Interrogatory No. 9, Defendant Burnitzki’s Interrogatory No. 18 9, and Defendant Holguin’s Interrogatory No. 10 – Defendants argue that the objections are 19 clearly deficient because they lack merit. Plaintiff relies on his objections from the previous 20 interrogatory. Defendants contend that the care Plaintiff received for any injuries previously 21 sustained on the areas of his body implicated in this lawsuit is clearly relevant and Plaintiff is not 22 justified by his non-specific objections in his refusal to provide any response. 23 As for Plaintiff’s responses to the similar interrogatories requesting Plaintiff to describe 24 his interaction with each of the Defendants before and after the date of the incidents at issue – 25 Defendant German’s Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 11, Defendant Burnitzki’s Interrogatories Nos. 26 10 and 11, and Defendant Holguin’s Interrogatory No. 11 – Defendants argue that Plaintiff offers 27 no information in response to the interrogatory, and Plaintiff’s objection is unmeritorious because 28 /// 13 1 the interrogatory is not overly broad and is relevant, particularly with respect to any claim that 2 Defendants were motivated to harm Plaintiff due to their previous interactions. 3 VI. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION 4 Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ motion to compel fails to establish the relevance of the 5 interrogatories to Defendants’ defense or how Plaintiff’s objections are not justified. Plaintiff 6 stands by his objections and argues that Defendants have not made any attempt to reasonably 7 limit the time spans for which they request information. 8 For the three identical interrogatories requesting Plaintiff to describe his “injuries,” – 9 Defendant German’s Interrogatory No. 8, Defendant Burnitzki’s Interrogatory No. 8, and 10 Defendant Holguin’s Interrogatory No. 9 – Plaintiff notes that the time span for the information 11 requested is the past 30 years of Plaintiff’s life. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not 12 attempted to clarify what type of injury information they seek. Plaintiff argues that his injuries 13 for the past 30 years are not relevant to Defendants’ claims that they did not use force on 2/24/11 14 and 8/28/11, and that defendant Holguin only used pepper spray against Plaintiff to secure the 15 food port on 4/18/11. Plaintiff also argues that his past injuries are not relevant to damages in 16 this case because Plaintiff is entitled to damages even if his injuries by Defendants aggravated 17 preexisting physical or mental injuries. 18 For the three similar interrogatories asking Plaintiff to describe the care he received for 19 his injuries, dates of care, and names and addresses of health care providers – Defendant 20 German’s Interrogatory No. 9, Defendant Burnitzki’s Interrogatory No. 9, and Defendant 21 Holguin’s Interrogatory No. 10 – Plaintiff stands by his objections that the interrogatories are 22 vague, overly broad, and irrelevant. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not met their burden 23 to explain why the information sought is relevant and why Plaintiff’s objections are not 24 meritorious. Plaintiff claims that Defendants use circular reasoning, stating that the care Plaintiff 25 received for the injuries to areas of his body implicated in the current lawsuit is relevant because 26 it is “clearly relevant.” 27 With respect to the interrogatories requesting Plaintiff to describe his interactions with 28 each of the Defendants before and after the date of the incidents at issue – Defendant German’s 14 1 Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 11, Defendant Burnitzki’s Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 11, and 2 Defendant Holguin’s Interrogatory No. 11 – Plaintiff stands by his objections on the grounds that 3 they are vague as to “interaction” or “communication,” and they are overly broad and 4 burdensome because the Defendants have worked in Plaintiff’s building for months and Plaintiff 5 interacts with them frequently. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not clarified the nature of 6 the interactions for which they seek information, or made any attempt to limit the time span other 7 than distinguishing before and after the events at issue. Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants’ 8 assertion that the interrogatories are relevant to whether Defendants were motivated to harm 9 Plaintiff due to previous interaction, because Plaintiff makes no such claim. Plaintiff also argues 10 that Defendants’ explanation that the interrogatories are relevant to potential impeachment at trial 11 is “speculative fishing” that does not warrant a response by Plaintiff. 12 VII. DISCUSSION 13 Generally, a discovery request without any temporal or other reasonable limitation is 14 objectionable on its face as overly broad. See, e.g., Ehrlich v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 302 F.R.D. 15 620, 625 (D. Kan. 2014); Johnson v. Kraft Foods North America, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 535, 541-542 16 (D. Kan. 2006). A document request or interrogatory is also overly broad or unduly burdensome 17 on its face if it: “(1) uses an omnibus term such as ‘relating to’ or ‘concerning,’ and (2) applies 18 to a general category or group of documents or a broad range of information.” Moses v. Halstead, 19 236 F.R.D. 667, 672 (D. Kan. 2006). “Despite the overly broad nature of [a discovery request], 20 a party typically has a duty to respond to it to the extent the [discovery request] is not 21 objectionable and can be narrowed to an appropriate scope.” Id. “This rule does not apply, 22 however, and the Court will not compel further response, when inadequate guidance exists to 23 determine the proper scope of the [discovery request].” Id. In addition, when a discovery request 24 “is overly broad on its face or when relevancy is not readily apparent, the party seeking discovery 25 has the burden to show the relevancy of the request.” Johnson, 236 F.R.D. at 542 n.20. 26 The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous 27 disregard of discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. 28 Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendants 15 1 have not met their burden to inform the court why Plaintiff’s objections are unmeritorious and 2 why the information requested is relevant. Stating that Plaintiff’s objections are “vague and 3 unmeritorious,” “clearly deficient because they lack merit,” and “unmeritorious because the 4 interrogatory is not overly broad” are not sufficient to explain why the objections are 5 unmeritorious. Defendants assert that the information requested is relevant for specific purposes, 6 such as to show whether previous interactions between Plaintiff and Defendants motivated 7 Defendants to harm Plaintiff, but they have not narrowed the scope of the discovery requested to 8 reflect those purposes or other purposes. Instead of arguing that the interrogatories are not vague 9 or overly broad, it would have benefited the parties for Defendants to clarify, for example, that 10 they are seeking “injuries to Plaintiff that had lasting effects and required medical care from a 11 health care practitioner.” All of Plaintiff’s injuries are not of consequence in determining this 12 action. After Plaintiff raised his objections, Defendants should have reasoned that the scope of 13 their interrogatories should be narrowed in time span, type of injury, and/or type of interaction 14 with Defendants, but they did not. 15 16 17 18 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel shall be denied. VIII. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to compel, filed on June 24, 2019, is DENIED. 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 5, 2019 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 16
]]>
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.
