Franklin v. Scribner et al, No. 3:2009cv01067 - Document 137 (S.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 130 Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Admission. Supplemental responses are to be provided by Defendants on or before November 9, 2012. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc 102 ) because it has been superseded by Plaintiff's Amended Motion (Doc 130 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on 10/18/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)(jrd)

Download PDF

Franklin v. Scribner et al Doc. 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) LARRY SMALLS, R. DAVIS, R. MADDEN, J. VARGAS, E. HALEY, E. ) HOPPER, S.F. ARIAS, ) ) ) Defendants. ) Civil No. 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) GREGORY A. FRANKLIN, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION [ECF NOS. 102, 130] 17 18 Plaintiff Gregory Franklin, a California prisoner proceeding 19 pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 20 1983 [ECF Nos. 1, 3], which now proceeds against Defendants Arias, 21 Davis, Haley, Hopper, Maciel, Madden, Small, Trujillo, and Vargas 22 for violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.1 23 (See Fourth Am. Compl. 1-2 ECF No. 79.) 24 Complaint, Franklin alleges that Defendants retaliated against him In his Fourth Amended 25 26 27 28 1 These Defendants have successfully moved to dismiss several causes of action over the course of the litigation [ECF Nos. 74, 89]. 1 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) Dockets.Justia.com (Id. at 4-5.)2 1 after he sued them in 2007. 2 his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated 3 when he was subjected to constant illumination from a "big cell 4 light" located right above his bunk. 5 Defendants Vargas, Arias, Hopper, Trujillo, Madden, Davis, and 6 Small filed an Answer [ECF No. 90], the Court conducted a case 7 management conference [ECF No. 92], and the parties commenced 8 discovery. 9 He also complains that (Id. at 16.) After Franklin contends that he served his first set of 10 interrogatories and requests for admission in January 2012. 11 Mot. Compel 2, ECF No. 130.) 12 to each discovery request on March 14, 2012. 13 2012, Plaintiff sent two meet-and-confer letters to defense counsel 14 where he requested additional responses to his interrogatories and 15 requests for admission. 16 26).) 17 (Id. (citing Id. Attach. #1 Ex. D).) 18 ([Am.] Defendants responded with objections (Id.) On April 19, (Id.; see id. Attach. #1 Ex. C, at 7, Defendants then served substantive interrogatory responses. Plaintiff's "Motion to Compel Defendants to Answer 19 Plaintiff['s] Interrogatories and Request[s] for Admissions" was 20 filed nunc pro tunc to May 18, 2012 [ECF No. 102]. 21 urges that the answers provided by Defendants were nonresponsive 22 and evasive. (Mot. Compel 2, ECF No. 102 (citing id. Ex. D).) 23 There, Franklin Defendants filed their "Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to 24 Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiff's Interrogatories and 25 Requests for Admission" on June 18, 2012, along with a Separate 26 2 27 28 Because the Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint, Motion to Compel, and [Amended] Motion to Compel are not consecutively paginated, the Court will cite to each using the page numbers assigned by the Court's electronic case filing system. 2 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 Statement and Declaration of Robert Borg [ECF No. 116].3 2 addition to raising objections, Defendants Madden, Davis, Hopper, 3 Arias, Vargas, Trujillo, and Small argue that the Motion should be 4 denied because Plaintiff failed to quote each interrogatory in full 5 in his Motion, violating Local Rule 33.1(b)). 6 116.) 7 In (Opp'n 7, ECF No. Franklin later submitted another motion to compel which was 8 filed nunc pro tunc to August 13, 2012 [ECF No. 130]. This second 9 Motion to Compel is identical to Plaintiff's first Motion, with the 10 exception of an added two-page memorandum of points and 11 authorities. 12 Mot. Compel 1-11, ECF No. 130). 13 supersedes the original. 14 Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that 15 whether party was named in original complaint was irrelevant 16 because amended complaint superseded the original complaint). 17 (Compare Mot. Compel 1-9, ECF No. 102, with [Am.] The Amended Motion to Compel Cf. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard On September 4, 2012, Defendants filed a "Response/Opposition 18 to Plaintiff's Additional Papers Presented in Connection with his 19 Motion to Compel Defendants to Answer Interrogatories and Requests 20 for Admission" (hereinafter Defendants' "Response") along with a 21 memorandum of points and authorities [ECF No. 133]. 22 filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternatively Partial 23 Summary Judgment" on June 11, 2012, which is pending before United 24 States District Court Judge Michael M. Anello [ECF No. 105]. They also 25 26 27 28 3 Because the exhibits attached to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Response/Opposition to Plaintiff's Additional Papers [ECF Nos. 116, 133] are not consecutively paginated, the Court will cite to each using the page numbers assigned by the Court's electronic case filing system. 3 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 To date, Plaintiff has not filed a reply to Defendants' 2 Opposition or Response. 3 Motions to Compel suitable for resolution on the papers, pursuant 4 to Civil Local Rule 7.1. 5 Court has reviewed Franklin's Motions, Defendants' Opposition, and 6 Defendants' Response. 7 GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's "[Amended] Motion to 8 Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiff['s] Interrogatories and 9 Request[s] for Admissions" [ECF No. 130]. 10 The Court finds both of Plaintiff's See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1). The For the reasons stated below, the Court I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 11 The allegations in the Fourth Amended Complaint surround 12 events that occurred while Franklin was housed at Calipatria State 13 Prison ("Calipatria"). 14 Plaintiff contends that after filing a lawsuit against Defendants 15 in 2007, they retaliated against him on several occasions. 16 generally id. at 4-15.) 17 acts of retaliation include (1) being punished for covering a light 18 in his cell; (2) Defendant Vargas forging Plaintiff's signature and 19 stealing mailing envelopes that Franklin was entitled to as an 20 indigent inmate; (3) charging him with committing a "serious rule 21 violation" rather than an administrative violation for calling 22 Defendant Arias a "stupid motherfucker"; 4) Defendant Reyes 23 preventing Franklin and other inmates from returning to their cells 24 from the yard, and then punishing only Franklin for failing to 25 return to his cell in a timely manner; (5) denying him recreation 26 time on August 12, 2007; (6) Defendant Maciel stealing a personal 27 package from Plaintiff; and (7) placing him on "C-status" after 28 allegedly committing two serious rule violations, which Franklin (Fourth Am. Compl. 1, ECF No. 79.) The (See Specifically, Franklin claims that the 4 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 believes were unfounded. (Id. at 6-14.) Finally, Plaintiff 2 maintains that his right to be free from cruel and unusual 3 punishment was violated when he was subjected to constant 4 illumination from a fluorescent lightbulb located above the bunk in 5 his cell. (Id. at 16.) 6 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 7 It is well established that a party may obtain discovery 8 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any claim or 9 defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information need not 10 be ultimately admissible at trial so long as the discovery appears 11 to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 12 evidence. 13 matter that bears on, or reasonably could lead to other matter that 14 could bear on, any issue that may be in the case. 15 Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350-51 (1978) (footnote 16 omitted) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947) 17 (discussing relevance to a claim or defense, although decided under 18 1978 version of Rule 26 that authorized discovery relevant to the 19 subject matter of the action). 20 Civil Procedure enables the propounding party to bring a motion to 21 compel responses to discovery. 22 party opposing discovery bears the burden of resisting disclosure. 23 Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 299 (C.D. Cal. 1992). 24 Id. Relevance is construed broadly to include any See Oppenheimer Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The "In general, pro se representation does not excuse a party 25 from complying with a court's orders and with the Federal Rules of 26 Civil Procedure." 27 F.3d 852, 856-57 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Jones v. Phipps, 39 F.3d 28 158, 163 (7th Cir. 1994); Anderson v. Home Ins. Co., 724 F.2d 82, Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 5 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 84 (8th Cir. 1983)). Above all, plaintiffs who choose to represent 2 themselves are expected to follow the rules of the court in which 3 they litigate. 4 1986); see also Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 5 2007) (discussing the pro se litigant's untimely filing in 6 violation of local rules). 7 entitled to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal 8 issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training, there is no 9 cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural Carter v. Comm'r, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008-09 (9th Cir. "[W]hile pro se litigants may be 10 requirements that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a 11 lawyer." Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). III. 12 13 A. DISCUSSION Timeliness 14 On February 27, 2012, this Court extended the parties' 15 discovery cutoff date from April 16, 2012, to May 14, 2012. 16 Granting Ex Parte Appl. 2, ECF No. 95.) 17 to Compel was filed nunc pro tunc to May 18, 2012 -- four days 18 after the new deadline. 19 of service attached to Franklin's Motion, however, is dated May 14, 20 2012. 21 is deemed filed on the date a prisoner delivers it to the prison 22 authorities for mailing to the court. 23 266, 270-72 (1988). 24 before the discovery cutoff, so the motion is timely. 25 Campbell, No. CIV S-07-0029 GEB BBH P, 2009 WL 2390599, at *1 (E.D. 26 Cal. Aug. 3, 2009) (applying mailbox rule when prisoner mailed 27 motion to compel on discovery cutoff date). (See id. at 10.) (Order Plaintiff's initial Motion (Mot. Compel 1, ECF No. 102.) The proof Under the mailbox rule, a legal document Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. Plaintiff mailed his first motion to compel See Anaya v. 28 6 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 Franklin's second Motion to Compel was filed nunc pro tunc to 2 August 13, 2012. ([Am] Mot. Compel 1, ECF No. 130.) This filing 3 was after the May 14, 2012 deadline. 4 Appl. 2, ECF No. 95.) 5 because his second motion to compel is virtually identical to the 6 first, the Court will consider the merits of the amended motion. 7 See McCowan v. Educ. Servs. of Am., No. 1:08-CV-55, 2009 WL 8 3055313, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 21, 2009) (addressing merits of pro 9 se litigant's motion to compel despite its untimeliness); See (See Order Granting Ex Parte In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, and 10 United States v. Select Aviation Corp., No. CV 05-1815(JS)(ARL), 11 2006 WL 2711545, at *1 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 20, 2006) (same). 12 Moreover, in their Response to Franklin's second motion, Defendants 13 do not argue that the motion should be denied as untimely. 14 generally Resp. 2-5, ECF No. 133.) 15 B. 16 (See Meet-and-Confer Requirement As previously noted, after receiving Defendants' initial 17 objections, Plaintiff sent two meet-and-confer letters to 18 Defendants on April 19, 2012. (See [Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 19 Ex. C, at 6-35, ECF No. 130.) Defendants subsequently served their 20 interrogatory answers on April 23, 2012. 21 Defense counsel responded to Franklin's meet-and-confer letter with 22 a letter of his own. 23 attempt to meet with Plaintiff in person. 24 his motion to compel less than a month later. 25 No. 102.) (Id. at 5-6.) (Opp'n 5, ECF No. 116.) Defense counsel made no (Id.) Franklin filed (Mot. Compel 10, ECF 26 According to the local rules, "The court will entertain no 27 motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37, Fed. R. Civ. P., unless 28 7 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 counsel shall have previously met and conferred concerning all 2 disputed issues." 3 have offices in the same county, they are to meet in person. 4 counsel have offices in different counties, they are to 5 confer by telephone." 6 "[u]nder no circumstances may the parties satisfy the meet-and- 7 confer requirement by exchanging written correspondence." 8 9 S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 26.1(a). (Id.) "If counsel If The local rules further provide that (Id.) Rules requiring meet-and-confer efforts apply to pro se litigants. Madsen v. Risenhoover, No. C 09-5457 SBA (PR), 2012 10 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90810, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (finding 11 that the meet-and-confer requirement applies to incarcerated 12 individuals, but noting that the incarcerated plaintiff may send a 13 letter to defendants); Walker v. Ryan, No. CV-10-1408-PHX-JWS 14 (LOA), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63606, at *5-6 (D. Ariz. May 7, 2012) 15 (denying motion to compel where unrepresented party did not include 16 a certification of attempts to meet and confer); see Jourdan v. 17 Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (discussing that although 18 courts should liberally construe pro se plaintiffs' pleadings and 19 legal arguments, this liberality does not apply to compliance with 20 straightforward procedural requirements). 21 A court can deny a motion to compel solely because of a 22 party's failure to meet and confer prior to filing the motion. 23 Scheinuck v. Sepulveda, No. C 09-0727 WHA (PR), 2010 U.S. Dist. 24 LEXIS 136529, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010); see Shaw v. Cnty. 25 of San Diego, No. 06-CV-2680-IEG (POR), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26 80508, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2008) (denying plaintiff's motion 27 to compel for failing to attempt to meet and confer). 28 courts can still decide a motion on the merits despite a failure to 8 Nonetheless, 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 meet and confer. See Marine Group, LLC v. Marine Trvelift, Inc., 2 No. 10cv846-BTM (KSC), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49064, at *6-7 (S.D. 3 Cal. Apr. 6, 2012) (explaining failure to meet and confer is 4 grounds for denying a motion, but still addressing the merits). 5 Franklin is currently incarcerated in the California State 6 Prison, located in Lancaster, which is in Los Angeles County. 7 [Am.] Mot. Compel 1, ECF No. 130.) 8 also located in Los Angeles County. 9 (See Accordingly, the parties failed to properly meet and confer in Defense counsel's office is (See Opp'n 1, ECF No. 116.) 10 person. 11 and confer in person, but not defense counsel's. 12 defense counsel did not ask to be excused from this obligation. 13 See Kunkel v. Dill, No. 1:09-cv-00686-LJO-SKO PC, 2010 U.S. Dist. 14 LEXIS 121754, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010) (stating that counsel 15 must make themselves reasonably available to the incarcerated party 16 in person, via telephone, or via video conference for a meet and 17 confer); See Beckner v. El Cajon Police Dept., 07cv509-W (BLM), 18 2008 WL 2033708, at *3 n.2 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2008) ("In light of 19 the circumstances, particularly Plaintiff's incarceration . . . the 20 Court does not find that justice, efficiency, or economy would have 21 been furthered by requiring the parties to meet in person or speak 22 on the phone.") 23 sending the two meet-and-confer letters. 24 to follow local rules will not preclude Plaintiff's Amended Motion 25 to Compel. 26 *7. 27 should be denied on this basis. 28 parties are now on notice, however, that additional discovery Franklin's incarcerated status limits his ability to meet Furthermore, Franklin attempted to confer with counsel by Defense counsel's failure See Marine Group LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49064, at Moreover, Defendants do not allege that Franklin's Motion (See Opp'n 2, ECF No. 116.) 9 Both 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 motions will not be entertained absent certification by the moving 2 party of compliance with the meet-and-confer requirement or an 3 order excusing compliance with this local rule. 4 R. 26.1(a). 5 C. 6 See S.D. Cal. Civ. Interrogatories Plaintiff asks the Court to grant his Motion to Compel because 7 the "overwhelming majority of [Defendants'] respon[se]s were non- 8 responsive and evasive." 9 (citing id. Ex. D).) ([Am.] Mot. Compel 2-3, ECF No. 130 Franklin states that he will "show the Court (Id. at 2.) 10 what answers are satisfactory and non-satisfactory[.]" 11 Plaintiff then classifies almost all of Defendants' interrogatory 12 responses into one of four categories: 13 "Unsatisfactory respond [sic], did not refer to records"; (3) "Ask, 14 unsatisfactory answer"; or (4) "Unsatisfactory respond [sic], did 15 not refer to record for accurate respond [sic]." 16 (1) "Ask and answer"; (2) (Id. at 3-9.) Franklin acknowledges that some of Defendants' responses were 17 "satisfactory." 18 classifications include the word "unsatisfactory." 19 9.) 20 Franklin's reference to "ask and answer" to mean that Plaintiff has 21 deemed the answer sufficient.4 22 interrogatories in its ruling on the Amended Motion to Compel. 23 (Id. at 2.) Three of Plaintiff's four (See id. at 3- Although not completely clear, the Court will construe The Court will not consider these Defendants generally contend that Franklin's motion to compel 24 should be denied because Defendants' responses were sufficient 25 because they complied with Rule 37 and were answered in full. 26 27 28 4 This is also consistent with Defendants' interpretation of Plaintiff's moving papers. (See Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 2, ECF No. 116.) 10 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 (Opp'n 7-8, ECF No. 116.) 2 to supplement their responses. 3 do exist, Defendants argue that providing further responses would 4 be burdensome and needlessly increase the cost of litigation 5 because the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 6 ("CDCR") "does not keep records in a manner that allows for such 7 information to be readily accessible." 8 Defendants maintain that their responses are sufficient because 9 some of Plaintiff's interrogatories assume facts that are in (Id. at 10.) They also allege that no records exist (Id. at 8.) To the extent records (Id. at 9.) Next, Finally, they urge that providing further 10 dispute. 11 responses would not assist Franklin in proving his claims. 12 11.) 13 reiterate that they have provided "full and complete" responses to 14 Plaintiff's interrogatories, and they argue that Franklin has not 15 shown that further responses are warranted. 16 133.) (Id. at In their reply memorandum, titled a Response, Defendants (Resp. 2, ECF No. 17 1. 18 Although defense counsel failed to meet and confer in person Compliance with Local Rule 33.1(b) 19 with Plaintiff concerning this discovery dispute, in Defendants' 20 Opposition, they maintain that Franklin's Motion to Compel should 21 be denied because Franklin failed to comply with the local rules. 22 (Opp'n 7, ECF No. 116.) 23 each interrogatory in full in his moving papers. 24 Specifically, Plaintiff failed to quote (Id.) Pursuant to Local Rule 33.1(b), "[O]bjections to answers to 25 interrogatories . . . must identify and quote each interrogatory in 26 full immediately preceding the statement of any answer or objection 27 thereto." 28 Franklin does not quote each interrogatory. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 33.1(b). 11 In the body of his Motion, (See generally [Am.] 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 Mot. Compel 1-9, ECF No. 130.) Yet, he attaches a copy of the 2 interrogatories, Defendants' objections, and Defendants' responses 3 as exhibits to his Motion. 4 Franklin's pro se status, the Court will consider his Motion to 5 Compel despite the failure to comply with local rules. 6 v. Dutra Const. Co., 183 F.3d 916, 919 n.2. (9th Cir. 1999) (per 7 curiam) ("District courts 'have broad discretion in interpreting 8 and applying their local rules.'") (quoting Miranda v. S. Pac. 9 Transp., 710 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1983)). (See id. Exs. A, D.) In light of See Delange Plaintiff is again 10 advised, however, that even as a pro se litigant he still must 11 adhere to the local rules. 12 continued failure to comply with these rules may be grounds for 13 dismissal or judgment by default. 14 15 16 2. See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.11(a). His See id. Objections that Defendants do not pursue a. Hopper interrogatory 5 and Trujillo interrogatories 8-10 17 In interrogatory 5, Franklin asks Hopper, "On August 12, 2007, 18 did Officer Haley or Officer Trujillo call you stating Plaintiff is 19 requesting to speak with you in regard to being disallowed the 20 recreation yard and confined to his cell?" 21 Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 56, ECF No. 130.) 22 question was vague and irrelevant. 23 ([Am.] Mot. Compel Hopper objected that the (Id. at 57.) In Trujillo interrogatory 8, Franklin asks, "On August 12, 24 2007, did Sgt. Hopper tell you not to allow Plaintiff to the 25 recreation yard and confine him to his cell?" 26 Plaintiff asks Trujillo in interrogatory 9, "On August 12, 2007, 27 did Plaintiff request to speak to Sgt. Hopper about being 28 disallowed to the recreation yard and being confined to his cell?" 12 (Id. at 66.) 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 (Id.) 2 12, 2007, did you confine Plaintiff to his cell at Sgt. Hopper's 3 request?" 4 vague, overbroad, and irrelevant. 5 Interrogatory 10, addressed to Trujillo, asks, "On August (Id. at 67.) Trujillo objected that the questions were (Id. at 66-67.) Both Defendants provided similar responses and answered 6 either, "I don't recall" or "I don't know." 7 Franklin now moves to compel further responses to these 8 interrogatories on the basis that Defendants did not refer to 9 appropriate prison records in their responses. 10 (Id. at 57, 66-67.) ([Am.] Mot. Compel 5-6, ECF No. 130.) 11 Although Defendants raised multiple objections when initially 12 responding to the interrogatories, the Court will only address the 13 ones they elected to pursue when opposing this Motion. 14 v. Armstrong, 08cv02318 W(RBB), 2012 WL 2190774, at *6 (S.D. Cal. 15 June 14, 2012) (acknowledging only those objections pursued in 16 opposing the motion). 17 in support of these objections. 18 Statement 23-25, 30, ECF No. 116.) 19 responses are sufficient because they do not recall whether the 20 events referred to in the interrogatories took place. 21 Further, they urge that a review of Franklin's central file and 22 pertinent records reveals no evidence of the alleged conversations. 23 (Id.) 24 See Bryant In their Opposition, Defendants do not argue (See Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Rather, they contend that their (Id.) "A party answering interrogatories has an affirmative duty to 25 furnish any and all information available to the party." 26 Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 33.102[1], at 33-72 27 (3rd ed. 2012) (footnote omitted). 28 answered "separately and fully in writing under oath." 13 7 James Interrogatories must be Fed. R. 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 Civ. P. 33(b)(3). 2 requested information, he may not simply refuse to answer. 3 v. Suryakant, No. 1:06-cv-1373-LJO-NEW(TAG), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4 48380, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2007) (citing Hansel v. Shell Oil 5 Corp., 169 F.R.D. 303, 305 (E.D. Pa. 1996)). 6 must state under oath that he is unable to answer the interrogatory 7 and must describe the efforts made to obtain the answer. 8 (citing Hansel, 169 F.R.D. at 305); see also 7 James Wm. Moore et 9 al., Moore's Federal Practice § 33.102[3], at 33-75 (footnote 10 11 If a responding party is unable to provide the Haworth The responding party Id. omitted). Here, although Defendants have verified their responses to 12 Franklin's interrogatories under oath, they did not explain under 13 oath why they are unable to provide the information requested, nor 14 do they describe the efforts made to obtain the information. 15 subsequent explanations were unverified and made by defense counsel 16 in opposition to this Motion to Compel. 17 with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 18 19 i. Their This is not in compliance Declaration of Robert Borg Defendant Hopper asserts that his response to interrogatory 5 20 is sufficient in light of Robert Borg's Declaration, which was 21 filed as an attachment to the Opposition. 22 Separate Statement 30, ECF No. 116 (citing id. Attach. #2 Decl. 23 Borg).) 24 because Borg reviewed Franklin's file and submitted a declaration 25 attesting to his findings. 26 (Opp'n Attach. #3 Defendant represents that his response is sufficient (Id.) Borg describes himself as an expert hired to provide testimony 27 concerning this lawsuit. 28 indicates that his "experience and education gives [him] an (Id. Attach. #2 Decl. Borg 1.) 14 He 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 understanding and an expertise to render informed opinions in this 2 case . . . ." 3 experience or educational background, so there is no reason to 4 conclude that he qualifies as an expert to opine in this case. 5 (Id. at 2.) He does not, however, explain his In the declaration, Borg discusses the difficulty of obtaining 6 the information Franklin seeks in the prison records system. 7 at 3-5.) 8 Plaintiff's file and has uncovered no evidence lending support to 9 Franklin's claims against the Defendants. 10 (Id. He also attests that he has conducted a review of (Id. at 2-5.) Interrogatories must, to the extent they are not objected to, 11 be answered under oath by the party to whom they are directed. 12 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 33(b)(1), (3). 13 wishes to supplement his responses, he must do so under oath. 14 Knights Armament Co. v. Optical Sys. Tech., Inc., 254 F.R.D 463, 15 466-67 (M.D. Fla. 2008), aff'd, 254 F.R.D. 470 (M.D. Fla. 2008) 16 (affirming sanction). 17 Declaration is offered to relieve Defendants of the obligation to 18 provide complete answers under oath, it will not suffice. 19 Defendants wish to supplement their responses, each must do so 20 under oath. 21 Hopper interrogatory 5 and Trujillo interrogatories 8-10 [ECF No. 22 130] is therefore GRANTED. 23 24 b. Further, if a responding party See Accordingly, to the extent Borg's If Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Hopper interrogatories 3 and 4 Franklin asks Hopper in interrogatory 3, "Did you tell Officer 25 Trujillo and Officer Haley, in A-2 building on August 12, 2007, to 26 not allow Plaintiff to go to the outside recreation yard on A-yard 27 at Calipatria State Prison?" 28 at 55, ECF No. 130.) ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, Plaintiff inquires in Hopper interrogatory 4, 15 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 "On August 12, 2007, did you tell Officer Trujillo and Officer 2 Haley to confine Plaintiff to his cell on A-facility at Calipatria 3 State Prison?" 4 questions were vague and irrelevant. 5 (Id. at 56.) Defendant objected that both (Id. at 55-56.) Hopper responded to both interrogatories by stating, "I don't 6 recall. If plaintiff wasn't allowed to go to the outside 7 recreation yard there may have been numerous reasons why he 8 couldn't go and I don't know what the specific reason was, if this 9 event even happened." (Id. at 56.) Franklin now moves to compel 10 and argues that Hopper did not refer to appropriate prison records 11 in his responses. 12 ([Am.] Mot. Compel 6, ECF No. 130.) In his Opposition to both interrogatories, Hopper contends 13 that his response is sufficient because he does not remember the 14 alleged conversations occurring, and a review of Plaintiff's 15 central file yielded no evidence that Defendant confined Franklin 16 to his cell or did anything to cause him pain and suffering. 17 (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 28-29, ECF No. 116 (citing to 18 id. Decl. Borg Attach. #2).) 19 "insistence on a further response borders on harassment." 20 Hopper maintains that Franklin's (Id.) As discussed above, in addition to stating that he does not 21 recall the events in question, Hopper must describe under oath why 22 he is unable to provide the information requested and describe the 23 efforts made to obtain the information. 24 not relieve Hopper of the obligation to provide his answers under 25 oath. 26 and the Motion to Compel further responses to interrogatories 3 and 27 4 [ECF No. 130] is GRANTED. Borg's Declaration does Plaintiff is entitled to supplemental, verified responses, 28 16 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 2 c. Trujillo interrogatory 1 In Trujillo interrogatory 1, Plaintiff asks, "How long did you 3 work at Calipatria State Prison? (Please give dates.)" 4 Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 62, ECF No. 130.) 5 on privacy and privilege grounds. 6 question was unrelated to any claim or defense of any party. 7 (Id.) ([Am.] Mot. Defendant objected He also argued that the Still, Trujillo responded by stating, "About 9 years. I don't 8 remember exactly." 9 basis that Trujillo did not refer to appropriate prison records in 10 11 his response. (Id. at 63.) (Id.) Franklin moves to compel on the ([Am.] Mot. Compel 4, ECF No. 130.) Defendant states that he did not remember exactly when he 12 began working at Calipatria, yet his answer is sufficient because 13 the nine-year period covers the incidents in question and 14 corresponds to the Plaintiff's stay at Calipatria. 15 #3 Separate Statement 17, ECF No. 116.) 16 Trujillo further submits that upon further investigation he began 17 working at Calipatria in January or February of 2002. 18 (Opp'n Attach. In the Opposition, (Id.) Here, Franklin asks Trujillo to provide the dates that he was 19 employed at Calipatria State Prison. 20 this supplemental information under oath. 21 Defendant's response is insufficient, and the Motion to Compel a 22 further response to Trujillo's interrogatory 1 [ECF No. 130] is 23 GRANTED. 24 d. Defendant did not provide For this reason, Madden interrogatory 10 25 Franklin inquires in Madden interrogatory 10, "Why was 26 Plaintiff found guilty of a serious rule violation for calling an 27 officer a stupid motherfucker?" 28 D, at 79, ECF No. 130.) ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. Defendant objected that the question was 17 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, calls for a legal conclusion, 2 and is unrelated to any claim or defense. 3 (Id. at 79-80.) Captain Madden then answered by stating, "I wasn't the senior 4 hearing officer. 5 disrespecting an officer is a serious rule violation." 6 80.) 7 interrogatory no. 10 unsatisfactory answer, chairperson of the 8 committee that used the rule violation for C-status, did not refer 9 to records [sic]." 10 He probably was found guilty because (Id. at In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff states "R. Madden, ([Am.] Mot. Compel. 8, ECF No. 130.) It is unclear why Franklin feels a further response is required. 11 Defendant urges that his response is sufficient because 12 Plaintiff's interrogatory calls for a qualitative answer -- 13 Madden's opinion. 14 116.) 15 discretion in answering." (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 50, ECF No. He contends that the question "affords Captain Madden much (Id.) 16 In his answer, Madden does not clarify why he is unable to 17 report the basis given for finding Franklin guilty of a serious 18 rule violation, even if he was not the "senior hearing officer." 19 Further, he does not articulate under oath any efforts made to 20 obtain the information needed to answer the interrogatory. 21 Accordingly, the Motion to Compel a further response to Madden 22 interrogatory 10 [ECF No. 130] is GRANTED. 23 24 e. Vargas interrogatory 16 Franklin asks in Vargas interrogatory 16, "Have you passed out 25 or distributed inmates' indigent envelopes in the past or present 26 in A-2 Building at Calipatria State Prison?" 27 Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 116, ECF No. 130.) 28 the question was vague, overbroad, and irrelevant. 18 ([Am.] Mot. Compel Defendant objected that (Id.) He then 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 responded by stating, "Yes. 2 Franklin moves to compel on the basis that Vargas did not refer to 3 appropriate prison records in his response. 4 ECF No. 130.) 5 Almost once a month." (Id. at 117.) ([Am.] Mot. Compel 3, In Opposition, Plaintiff alleges that he answered Plaintiff's 6 question by admitting that he distributed inmates' indigent 7 envelopes in the past. 8 ECF No. 116.) 9 interrogatory. 10 11 12 (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 14, Defendant has sufficiently responded to Franklin's Accordingly, the Motion to Compel a further response to Vargas interrogatory 16 [ECF No. 130] is DENIED. 3. Interrogatories where objections were waived a. Vargas interrogatory 15 13 Plaintiff inquires in Vargas interrogatory 15, "What officers 14 were working with you on third watch in A-2 Building at Calipatria 15 State Prison, on July 18, 2007 and July 25, 2007?" 16 Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 116, ECF No. 130.) 17 that the question was vague, overbroad, and irrelevant. ([Am.] Mot. Vargas objected 18 Defendant answered by stating, "I don't know." 19 Franklin moves to compel because Vargas did not refer to 20 appropriate prison records in his response. 21 (Id.) ECF No. 130.) 22 23 i. (Id.) ([Am.] Mot. Compel 4, Waived objections In his Opposition, Vargas contends that acquiring prison 24 records would needlessly add to the cost of litigation. 25 Attach. #3 Separate Statement 14, ECF No. 116.) 26 of Civil Procedure provide that any ground for objection to an 27 interrogatory that is not stated in a timely manner is waived 28 unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for 19 (Opp'n The Federal Rules 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 good cause shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); see Mancia v. 2 Mayflower Textile Svcs. Co., 253 F.R.D. 354, 359 (D. Md. 2008). 3 Objections generally must be served within 30 days of the service 4 of the interrogatories. 5 initially object on the ground that procuring the records needed to 6 answer this interrogatory would needlessly increase the cost of 7 litigation. 8 ECF No. 130, with Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 14, ECF No. 9 116.) Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). Vargas did not (Compare [Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 116, Furthermore, this objection was made without determining 10 whether any responsive records exist or what efforts would be 11 required to locate them. 12 13-14, ECF No. 116.) 13 objection. 14 ii. (See Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement Vargas waived this belated and conclusory Sufficiency of Vargas's response 15 Next, Vargas argues that his response is sufficient because 16 (1) he does not know who was working with him on July 18 and 25, 17 2007; (2) he has no documents in his possession that contain the 18 information; and (3) assuming he could find relevant work schedules 19 reflecting who he was working with on those days, prison staffing 20 changes daily, so there is no guarantee that the work schedules 21 would be accurate. 22 No. 116 (citing id. Decl. Borg Attach. #2).) 23 statements were not made under oath. 24 provide the information requested by Franklin, and he has failed to 25 state under oath why he is unable to provide it. 26 do not relieve Vargas of the obligation to do so. 27 Compel a further response to Vargas interrogatory 15 [ECF No. 130] 28 is GRANTED. (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 13-14, ECF 20 Again, these Defendant has failed to Borg's statements The Motion to 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 2 b. Davis interrogatory 1 In Davis interrogatory 1, Plaintiff asks, "How long, from the 3 beginning until the end or departure, were you lieutenant on A- 4 facility at Calipatria State Prison?" 5 #1 Ex. D, at 92, ECF No. 130.) 6 privilege grounds. 7 sought by Franklin was unrelated to any claim or defense. 8 Defendant answered by stating, "I don't know. 9 about nine and a half years as a lieutenant and twenty years in (Id.) (Id. at 93.) ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. Davis objected on privacy and He also objected that the information (Id.) I was there for Franklin moves to compel on the basis that 10 total." 11 Davis did not refer to appropriate prison records in his response. 12 ([Am.] Mot. Compel 6, ECF No. 130.) i. 13 14 Waived objections Davis now objects that the interrogatory is vague as to time 15 and that his reference to "'from the beginning until the end or 16 departure' provides no additional clarification." 17 #3 Separate Statement 32-33, ECF No. 116.) 18 object on this ground, so the objection was waived. 19 20 ii. (Opp'n Attach. Davis did not initially Sufficiency of Davis's response Defendant maintains that his answer to interrogatory 1 is 21 sufficient because he has stated how long he has worked as a 22 lieutenant on A-Facility, and his answer covers the time period in 23 question. 24 conducting further research would be a waste of time and resources. 25 (Id. at 33.) 26 long he was a lieutenant in Calipatria's A-Facility. 27 and the Motion to Compel a further response to Davis interrogatory 28 1 [ECF No. 130] is DENIED. (Id.) He asserts that in light of his response, Davis has answered the question asked and stated how 21 Accordingly, 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 c. 2 Trujillo interrogatory 12 In Trujillo interrogatory 12, Plaintiff inquires, "As an 3 employee of California Department of Corrections and 4 Rehabilitation, how many times has a civil complaint been brought 5 against you?" 6 130.) 7 grounds. 8 seeks information unrelated to any claim or defense of any party. 9 (Id. at 69.) ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D at 68, ECF No. Defendant objected on privacy, privilege, and relevance (Id. at 68-69.) He also objected that the interrogatory Trujillo responded by stating, "This is the only one (Id.) Franklin moves to compel because Defendant did 10 I know of." 11 not refer to appropriate prison records in his response. 12 Mot. Compel 5, ECF No. 130.) i. 13 ([Am.] Waived objections In his Opposition, Trujillo objects that the information 14 15 sought by Plaintiff is a public record. 16 Statement 27, ECF No. 116.) 17 object on this ground. 18 ii. 19 (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Defendant, however, did not initially So, as discussed, the objection was waived. Sufficiency of Trujillo's response Trujillo then states that it is not uncommon for correctional 20 officers to be sued by inmates for claims relating to their work, 21 and Defendant does not recall if he was previously sued. 22 Accordingly, he claims that no further response is warranted. 23 (Id.) 24 steps he took to investigate how many civil complaints have been 25 brought against him. 26 the statement in his Opposition. 27 interrogatory answer is not sufficient. (Id.) In his response, Defendant does not state under oath the Trujillo's interrogatory answer differs from In light of the discrepancy, the The Motion to Compel a 28 22 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 further response to Trujillo interrogatory 12 [ECF No. 130] is 2 therefore GRANTED. 3 4. 4 Interrogatories objected to on relevance grounds a. 5 Trujillo interrogatory 4 In Trujillo interrogatory 4, Franklin asks Defendant, "Did 6 Plaintiff bring two separate civil complaints against you?" ([Am.] 7 Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 64, ECF No. 130.) 8 objected that the question was vague, overbroad, and irrelevant. 9 (Id.) Defendant Defendant answered the interrogatory by stating, "I don't (Id.) Plaintiff moves to compel on the basis that Trujillo 10 know." 11 did not refer to appropriate prison records in his response. 12 ([Am.] Mot. Compel 5, ECF No. 130.) i. 13 Relevance In his Opposition, Defendant contends that the interrogatory 14 15 seeks irrelevant information. 16 20, ECF No. 116.) 17 relevant to Franklin's accusation that Trujillo retaliated against 18 Plaintiff after he brought a lawsuit against Defendant in 2007. 19 The existence of a prior lawsuit against Trujillo is the basis for 20 Plaintiff's current retaliation claim. 21 ii. 22 (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement This interrogatory seeks information that is The objection is overruled. Sufficiency of Trujillo's response Officer Trujillo submits that Franklin is the best person to 23 determine if he brought two separate suits against Defendant. 24 (Id.) 25 because Defendant answered "as best as he could[.]" 26 context of the claims against him, Trujillo's response is 27 insufficient because he did not state under oath that he is unable 28 to provide the information Plaintiff requests. Trujillo also argues that no further response is required 23 (Id.) In the Nor does he 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 describe under oath the efforts made to obtain the information. 2 The Motion to Compel a further response to Trujillo interrogatory 4 3 [ECF No. 130] is GRANTED. 4 5 b. Trujillo interrogatory 7 Franklin asks, "Did your supervisor, Sgt. Portellio, tell you 6 that Plaintiff has to be allowed to perform his work assignment and 7 you still refused to allow him to perform his work assignment?" 8 ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 65, ECF No. 130.) 9 Defendant objected that the question was vague, overbroad, and (Id. at 65-66.) Trujillo answered by stating, "I 10 irrelevant. 11 don't recall." 12 Trujillo did not refer to appropriate prison records in his 13 response. ([Am.] Mot. Compel 5, ECF No. 130.) 14 15 (Id. at 66.) Plaintiff moves to compel because i. Relevance In his Opposition, Trujillo urges that he is not accused of 16 preventing Plaintiff from performing his work assignment. 17 Attach. #3 Separate Statement 22, ECF No. 116.) 18 that the only allegation against him is that he prevented Plaintiff 19 from going to the recreation yard on a single day. 20 Court construes this as a relevance objection. 21 (Opp'n Rather, he asserts (Id.) The In his Complaint, Franklin maintains that Trujillo confined 22 Franklin to his cell on August 12, 2007. (Fourth Am. Compl. 10, 23 ECF No. 79.) Plaintiff does not allege that Trujillo prevented him 24 from working. Nevertheless, refusing to permit Franklin to go to 25 the recreation yard or his work assignment is relevant to 26 Plaintiff's retaliation claim. 27 interrogatory is vague. 28 ECF No. 116.) Defendant also objects that the (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 22, This objection is overruled, and the Motion to 24 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 Compel a further response to Trujillo interrogatory 7 [ECF No. 130] 2 is GRANTED. 3 c. Warden Small interrogatories 4 and 5 4 In interrogatory 4 to Warden Small, Franklin inquires, "How 5 many general population maximum security level facilities in the 6 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [have] you 7 worked or [were] employed [at that] had a large cell light or 8 ceiling cell light that did no[t] ever cut-off and produce[d] 9 constant illumination?" ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 10 40, ECF No. 130.) 11 provide him with the names of the facilities. 12 In interrogatory 5, Franklin asks Defendant to (Id. at 41.) Defendant objected to both interrogatories on privacy, 13 privilege, and relevance grounds. 14 objected that the questions were vague, overbroad, unduly 15 burdensome, and unrelated to any claim or defense. 16 Small answered interrogatory 4 by stating, "I do not recall." 17 at 41.) 18 (Id. at 42.) 19 to appropriate prison records in his response to interrogatory 4. 20 ([Am.] Mot. Compel 9, ECF No. 130.) 21 response to interrogatory 5 on the basis that Small did not refer 22 to the appropriate "record or staff." 23 24 (Id. at 40-42.) He also (Id. at 41-42.) (Id. He answered interrogatory 5 by stating, "I don't know." Franklin moves to compel because Small did not refer i. He moves to compel a further (Id.) Relevance Small objects to both on relevance grounds because none of 25 Plaintiff's claims concern constant illumination in other prisons. 26 (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 56, 58, ECF No. 116.) 27 Complaint, Franklin contends that Defendant issued a memorandum 28 stating that Calipatria inmates may not cover the lights in their 25 In his 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 cells. (Fourth Am. Compl. 16, ECF No. 79.) 2 this violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and 3 unusual punishment. 4 under the Eighth Amendment, the prisoner must allege facts that 5 demonstrate that he was confined under conditions posing a risk of 6 "objectively, sufficiently serious" harm and that prison officials 7 had a "sufficiently culpable state of mind in allowing the 8 deprivation to take place." 9 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that To show cruel and unusual punishment Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1076 10 omitted). 11 reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence that Franklin 12 personally suffered a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. 13 The objection is sustained, and the Motion to Compel further 14 responses to interrogatories 4 and 5 to Defendant Small [ECF No. 15 130] is DENIED. 16 17 Evidence of conditions in other prisons is not d. Warden Small interrogatory 13 Plaintiff asks Defendant Small, "During your tenure at 18 Calipatria State Prison as acting warden, which inmate remained the 19 longest in A-2-B privileged group in a general population facility 20 without going to Administrative Segregated Housing Unit?" 21 Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 47, ECF No. 130.) 22 objected that interrogatory 13 was vague, overbroad, unduly 23 burdensome, and irrelevant. 24 privacy grounds. 25 (Id. at 47-48.) ([Am.] Defendant He also objected on (Id. at 48.) Small answered by stating, "I don't know." (Id.) 26 moves to compel on the basis that Small did not refer to 27 appropriate prison records in this response. 28 Franklin ECF No. 130.) 26 ([Am.] Mot. Compel 9, 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 i. 2 Relevance Defendant continues to object that the information Plaintiff 3 seeks is irrelevant and asserts that it will not assist him in 4 proving his claims. 5 No. 116.) 6 would be the answer to the question, comparing his designation in 7 A2B privilege group to other inmates serves no purpose whatsoever." 8 (Id.) (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 62, ECF "If Plaintiff insinuates that he is the individual who 9 As discussed, Franklin argues in his Fourth Amended Complaint 10 that Small issued a memorandum that prohibited covering the lights 11 located in the individual cells of the prison. 12 16, ECF No. 79.) 13 to be free from cruel and usual punishment. 14 how identifying which inmate remained in the A-2-B privilege group 15 without going to the administrative segregated housing unit is 16 relevant to his claim. 17 privileged group" or the "Administrative Segregated Housing Unit" 18 in his claims against this Defendant. 19 Moreover, Defendant objects that the interrogatory is also vague, 20 overbroad, and overly burdensome. 21 Statement, ECF No. 116.) 22 Motion to Compel a further response to interrogatory 13 [ECF No. 23 130] is DENIED. 24 25 e. (Fourth Am. Compl. Plaintiff contends that this violated his right (Id.) It is unclear Plaintiff makes no mention of the "A-2-B The objection is sustained. (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate The objections are sustained, and the Madden interrogatory 5 Franklin asks in Madden interrogatory 5, "How many inmates on 26 A-facility have you put on C-status from January 1, 2007 until 27 October 7, 2007?" 28 No. 130.) ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 76, ECF Defendant objected that the question was vague, 27 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 overbroad, and unduly burdensome. 2 privacy and relevance grounds. 3 (Id.) He also objected on (Id.) Captain Madden responded to the interrogatory by stating, "I 4 do not know. 5 committee and it depends on the counselors who bring the inmate to 6 committee and the behavior of the inmate." 7 to compel because Defendant did not refer to appropriate prison 8 records in his response. 9 10 Being placed on C-Status is a decision made by i. (Id.) Plaintiff moves ([Am.] Mot. Compel 7, ECF No. 130.) Relevance In his Opposition, Madden asserts that requiring him to answer 11 would be a waste of time and resources because the question seeks 12 information that has no bearing on Plaintiff's claims against 13 Madden. 14 The Court construes this as a relevance objection. (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 46, ECF No. 116.) 15 In his Complaint, Franklin alleges that Defendant was the 16 "chairperson of the hearing" committee that placed Plaintiff on "C- 17 Status" for committing two serious rule violations. 18 Compl. 13, ECF No. 16.) 19 is relevant to Franklin's claim that Defendant retaliated against 20 Plaintiff for filing the 2007 lawsuit against Madden. 21 interpretation of this interrogatory requires the Defendant to 22 respond to how many inmates were placed on C-status by the 23 committee chaired by the Defendant during this period. 24 objection is overruled. 25 ii. (Fourth Am. This interrogatory seeks information that A reasonable The Sufficiency of Madden's response 26 Next, Defendant argues that his response is sufficient because 27 he does not know the answer to the question, and he has answered to 28 the best of his ability. (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 46, 28 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 ECF No. 116.) 2 question implies that it is within Captain Madden's discretion to 3 place an inmate on C-status, when in fact, it is the Unit 4 Classification Committee's responsibility to do so. 5 Further, he insists that the phrasing of the (Id.) Defendant's assertion that the decision to place an inmate on 6 C-status is made by committee does not justify his failure to 7 investigate or the deficiency of his response. 8 Motion to Compel a further response to Madden interrogatory 5 [ECF 9 No. 130] is GRANTED. 10 11 f. Accordingly, the Vargas interrogatory 12 In Vargas interrogatory 12, Franklin asks, "When did you 12 receive your first notification or summons you were being sued by 13 Plaintiff for taking his personal property, on April 6, 2006, in 14 A-2 Building at Calipatria State Prison?" 15 Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 114, ECF No. 130.) 16 question assumes facts and lacks foundation. 17 objected that it was vague, overbroad, and irrelevant. 18 114-15.) 19 ([Am.] Mot. Compel Vargas objected that the (Id.) He also (Id. at Defendant answered the interrogatory by stating, "I can't 20 remember." (Id. at 115.) 21 that Vargas did not refer to appropriate prison records in his 22 response. ([Am.] Mot. Compel 4, ECF No. 130.) 23 24 Plaintiff moves to compel on the basis i. Relevance Defendant argues that "[P]laintiff again refers to Officer 25 Vargas' alleged theft of plaintiff's property, but this time uses a 26 different date. 27 plaintiff's operative complaint." There are no property theft allegations in (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate 28 29 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 Statement 11, ECF No. 116.) 2 relevance objection. 3 The Court construes this as a In Franklin's Fourth Amended Complaint, there are no 4 allegations that Vargas stole any of Plaintiff's personal property 5 on April 6, 2006. 6 49.) 7 against Defendant in 2007. 8 a second amended complaint on June 27, 2008, alleging that 9 Defendant Vargas took Plaintiff's "legal books, legal papers and (See generally Fourth Am. Compl. 4-16, ECF No. Yet, Franklin does allege that he brought an initial lawsuit (Id. at 5, 17.) In that case, he filed See Pl.['s] [Second] Am. 10 universal adapter" on April 7, 2006. 11 Compl. at 14, Franklin v. Scribner, No. 07-cv-438 WVG (RBB) (S.D. 12 Cal. 2007), ECF No. 82. 13 this appears to be the same search that Franklin refers to in his 14 interrogatory to Vargas. 15 governing discovery, Franklin's interrogatory seeks information 16 relevant to Vargas's knowledge of the underlying lawsuit, which is 17 the basis for Franklin's current retaliation claim. 18 the relevance objection is overruled. 19 ii. Although the dates are off by one day, In light of the liberal standards Accordingly, Sufficiency of Vargas's response 20 Next, Vargas alleges that his response is sufficient because 21 he does not recall recieving notice of the lawsuit, and there are 22 no documents in Plaintiff's central file indicating that Defendant 23 took any of Franklin's belongings and was subsequently sued for 24 doing so. 25 Defendant's response of "I can't remember" is insufficient. 26 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a further response to 27 Vargas interrogatory 12 [ECF No. 130] is GRANTED. (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 11, ECF No. 116.) 28 30 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 5. 2 Interrogatories objected to on vagueness grounds a. Vargas interrogatory 13 3 In interrogatory 13, Plaintiff inquires, "Who passed out 4 inmates' indigent envelopes, on July 18, 2007 and July 25, 2007, in 5 A-2 Building at Calipatria State Prison?" 6 Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 115, ECF No. 130.) 7 the question is vague, overbroad, and irrelevant. 8 answered by stating, "Officers normally do it. 9 (Id.) ([Am.] Mot. Compel Defendant objected that (Id.) He I don't remember." Franklin moves to compel on the basis that Defendant did not 10 refer to appropriate prison records in his response. 11 Compel 4, ECF No. 130.) 12 13 i. ([Am.] Mot. Vagueness Vargas argues in his Opposition that Plaintiff's question is 14 "vague as to what further information he desires." 15 #3 Separate Statement 12, ECF No. 116.) 16 clear and precise, asking which Calipatria employee distributed 17 inmates' indigent envelopes on two particular days, in a particular 18 building at Calipatria. 19 objection is overruled. 20 21 ii. (Opp'n Attach. Franklin's question is The interrogatory is not vague, and the Sufficiency of Vargas's response Next, Defendant contends that his response is sufficient 22 because he does not recall who distributed the envelopes. 23 Vargas's failure to recall is an incomplete response; his answer 24 does not describe what efforts he made to obtain the requested 25 information. 26 interrogatory 13 [ECF No. 130] is GRANTED. (Id.) The Motion to Compel a further response to Vargas 27 28 31 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 b. 2 Trujillo interrogatories 3 and 5 Franklin asks in Trujillo interrogatory 3, "When did you first 3 receive notification that Plaintiff brought a civil complaint 4 against you?" 5 130.) 6 allow Plaintiff to perform his work assignment during his work 7 hours?" 8 vague, overbroad, and irrelevant. 9 ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 63, ECF No. Plaintiff asks Defendant in interrogatory 5, "Why didn't you (Id. at 64.) Defendant objected that both questions were (Id. at 63-65.) Trujillo responded to interrogatory 3 by stating, "I don't (Id. at 64.) He answered interrogatory 5 by stating, "I 10 know." 11 don't recall the incident." 12 because Trujillo did not refer to appropriate prison records in his 13 response. 14 15 (Id. at 65.) Franklin moves to compel ([Am.] Mot. Compel 4-5, ECF No. 130.) i. Vagueness In his Opposition, Defendant objects that interrogatories 3 16 and 5 are vague. 17 No. 116.) 18 Plaintiff does not indicate which lawsuit he is referring to, nor 19 does he reference the subject matter of the lawsuit. 20 In his Complaint, Franklin submits that he sued Defendant Trujillo 21 once before, in 2007. 22 interrogatory is not so vague that it cannot be answered. 23 objection is overruled. (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 19-21, ECF Defendant asserts that interrogatory 3 is vague because (Id. at 19.) (Fourth Am. Compl. 10, ECF No. 79.) The This 24 According to Defendant, interrogatory 5 is vague because 25 Plaintiff fails to specify a time and place when Trujillo allegedly 26 did not allow Plaintiff to perform his work assignment. 27 Attach. #3 Separate Statement 20-21, ECF No. 116.) 28 is vague because Franklin does not reference a specific time 32 (Opp'n Interrogatory 5 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 period. Moreover, in his Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff does 2 not allege that Trujillo prevented Franklin from performing his 3 work assignment. 4 Plaintiff show the relevance of this information. 5 interrogatory is irrelevant in addition to being vague. 6 Accordingly, the Motion to Compel further responses to Vargas 7 interrogatory 3 is GRANTED but as to interrogatory 5, the Motion 8 [ECF No. 130] is DENIED. 9 c. (See Fourth Am. Compl. 10, ECF No. 79.) Nor does Thus, the Vargas interrogatory 4 10 Plaintiff asks Vargas in interrogatory 4, "On January 31, 11 2007, in A-2 Building at Calipatria State Prison, did you deny 12 Plaintiff his work privilege phone call?" 13 Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 109, ECF No. 130.) 14 the question assumes facts and lacks foundation. 15 objected that the question was vague, overbroad, and irrelevant. 16 (Id.) 17 ([Am.] Mot. Compel Defendant objected that Vargas answered, "I don't recall." He also (Id.) (Id.) Franklin moves to compel because Small provided an 18 "unsatisfactory answer." 19 Plaintiff does not articulate why Defendant's response is 20 deficient. 21 6, 9 (D.D.C. 2005) ("Because plaintiff has completely failed to 22 explain how defendant's answers were evasive, incomplete, or non- 23 responsive, it is impossible for the court to determine what 24 information plaintiff wants compelled."); see also Daiflon, Inc. v. 25 Allied Chem. Corp., 534 F.2d 221, 227 (10th Cir. 1976) (noting that 26 the movant has the burden of proving that the answer in question 27 was incomplete). 28 Fourth Amended Complaint regarding an alleged deprivation of phone ([Am.] Mot. Compel 3, ECF No. 130.) Yet, See Washington v. Thurgood Marshall Acad., 232 F.R.D. Moreover, there are no allegations in Plaintiff's 33 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 privileges. 2 The interrogatory therefore also seeks irrelevant information. 3 Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Vargas to further respond to 4 interrogatory 4 [ECF No. 130] is DENIED. 5 6. Interrogatories objected to on equal access grounds 6 7 (See generally Fourth Am. Compl. 4-16, ECF No. 49.) a. Vargas interrogatory 17 In interrogatory 17, Plaintiff asks Defendant Vargas, "Have 8 you ever been sued or had a complaint brought against you as an 9 employee for the California Department of Corrections and 10 Rehabilitation in a court of law?" 11 Ex. D, at 117, ECF No. 130.) 12 privacy, privilege, and relevance grounds. 13 Defendant alleged that the information sought by Plaintiff was 14 obtainable from public sources. 15 objected that the question was vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, 16 and seeks information unrelated to any claim or defense of any 17 party. 18 ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Defendant objected to the question on (Id.) (Id. at 118.) Further, Finally, Vargas (Id. at 117-18.) Vargas responded, "I believe I have but I can't recall a 19 specific incident." 20 basis that Vargas did not refer to appropriate prison records in 21 his response. 23 Franklin moves to compel on the ([Am.] Mot. Compel 4, ECF No. 130.) i. 22 (Id. at 118.) Equal access In his Opposition, Vargas alleges that the information sought 24 is in the public records. (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 16, 25 ECF No. 116.) 26 required. 27 documents of public record that are equally accessible to all 28 parties." Accordingly, he submits, no further response is (Id.) "A court may refuse to order production of 7 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 34 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 34.12[5][b], at 34-53 (3d ed. 2011) (footnote omitted). 2 production from the adverse party may be ordered when it would be 3 excessively burdensome . . . for the requesting party to obtain the 4 documents from the public source rather than from the opposing 5 party." 6 "However, Id. (footnote omitted). Franklin does not present any argument supporting why he 7 should be provided an additional answer. 8 complete answer; supplemental information about lawsuits is not 9 called for by interrogatory 17. Vargas provided a Franklin's Motion to Compel a 10 further response to Vargas interrogatory 17 [ECF No. 130] is 11 DENIED. 12 13 b. Davis interrogatory 2 and Madden interrogatory 4 In Davis interrogatory 2 and Madden interrogatory 4, Franklin 14 asks the same question, "How many disciplinary actions did 15 Plaintiff receive for violating rules and regulations from 2003 16 until July 1, 2007?" 17 93, ECF No. 130.) 18 vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. 19 also claimed that the information sought is obtainable from another 20 source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less 21 expensive. 22 relevance grounds. (Id.) ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 75, Davis and Madden objected that the question was (Id.) Davis and Madden Finally, Defendant Davis objected on privacy and (Id. at 93.) 23 Both Defendants responded by stating, "I do not know. 24 on information and belief, Plaintiff received two actions: 25 9/6/05 and another on 1/9/06. 26 Plaintiff placing coverings that inhibit vision into the cell." 27 (Id. at 76, 93.) 28 Davis and Madden's responses are deficient because Franklin Based one on Both incidents involved the In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff argues that 35 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 inquired about rule violations, not "action[s] or counseling" 2 ([Am.] Mot. Compel 6, 7, ECF No. 130.) 3 4 i. Equal access In their Opposition, both Defendants maintain that Franklin 5 could have answered this question himself by referring to his 6 central file, which is accessible to him. 7 Separate Statement 34, 45, ECF No. 116.) 8 any argument supporting why he is unable to obtain these records on 9 his own, nor has he offered a persuasive argument to shift the cost (Opp'n Attach. #3 Franklin does not present 10 and burden of obtaining the court records to the Defendants. 11 objection is sustained, and the Motion to Compel further responses 12 to Davis interrogatory 2 and Madden interrogatory 4 [ECF No. 130] 13 is DENIED. 14 15 16 7. The Interrogatories where multiple objections are pursued a. Trujillo interrogatory 2 Plaintiff asks in Trujillo interrogatory 2, "When did you work 17 at Calipatria State Prison, A-2 Building? (Please give dates.)" 18 ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 63, ECF No. 130.) 19 Defendant objected on privilege and privacy grounds. 20 also argued that the information sought is unrelated to any claim 21 or defense. 22 (Id.) He (Id.) Trujillo answered by stating, "I don't remember the year. 23 worked there about 6 months, but I don't remember when." 24 Franklin moves to compel because Defendant did not refer to 25 appropriate prison records in his response. 26 I ECF No. 130.) (Id.) ([Am.] Mot. Compel 4, 27 28 36 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 i. 2 Relevance Trujillo objects that the interrogatory "seeks information 3 that will not assist plaintiff in proving his claims." 4 Attach. #3 Separate Statement 18, ECF No. 116.) 5 the Court construes this as a relevance objection. 6 Trujillo was working in Calipatria's A-2 building is relevant to 7 the events giving rise to this lawsuit. 8 overruled. 9 ii. 10 (Opp'n As it did earlier, Whether The objection is Waived objections Defendant also objects that the interrogatory is vague and 11 that requiring Defendant to further respond would "needlessly add 12 to the cost of litigation" because there is no guarantee that if 13 work schedules or similar documents were even located that they 14 would be accurate. 15 on these grounds initially. 16 waived. (Id. at 18-19.) Yet, Trujillo did not object Accordingly, these objections were 17 iii. Sufficiency of Trujillo's response 18 Here, Franklin requests that Defendant provide him with the 19 beginning and end dates that he worked in Calipatria's A-2 20 building. 21 he is unable to provide them or what efforts he made to obtain 22 them. 23 the Motion to Compel a further response to Trujillo interrogatory 2 24 [ECF No. 130] is GRANTED. 25 26 Trujillo does not provide dates, nor does he state why (See id.) b. Defendant's answer is therefore insufficient, and Trujillo interrogatory 6 In Trujillo interrogatory 6, Plaintiff inquires, "Why was 27 Plaintiff confined to his cell when he was not allowed to perform 28 his work assignment?" ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 65, 37 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 ECF No. 130.) Defendant objected that the question was vague, 2 overbroad, and irrelevant. 3 "If he was told to go back to his cell, he might have refused to go 4 to work or didn't want to do assigned duties. 5 you can't go to yard." 6 Trujillo did not refer to appropriate prison records in his 7 response. (Id.) Trujillo responded by stating, During work hours Franklin moves to compel because ([Am.] Mot. Compel 5, ECF No. 130.) 8 i. 9 (Id.) Relevance Defendant objects to the interrogatory because Franklin does 10 not allege that Trujillo prevented Plaintiff from performing his 11 work assignment. 12 116.) 13 Complaint, Franklin maintains that Trujillo did not allow Plaintiff 14 to go to the recreation yard and confined him to his cell on August 15 27, 2007. 16 interrogatory 6 seeks information about the reasons Trujillo 17 confined Plaintiff to his cell, there are no allegations in 18 Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint that Trujillo prevented 19 Franklin from performing his work assignment. 20 relevance objection is sustained. 21 ii. 22 (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 21, ECF No. The Court construes this as a relevance objection. (Fourth Am. Compl. 10, ECF No. 79.) In his Although Accordingly, the Vagueness Next, Trujillo argues that the interrogatory is vague because 23 Franklin does not specify a time and place when Defendant allegedly 24 confined Plaintiff to his cell and prevented him from performing 25 his work assignment. 26 No. 116.) 27 is sustained. 28 interrogatory 6 [ECF No. 130] is DENIED. (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 21, ECF The interrogatory is vague as to time, and the objection The Motion to Compel a further response to Trujillo 38 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 c. 2 Vargas interrogatories 10 and 11 and Trujillo interrogatory 11 3 In Vargas interrogatory 10, Franklin asks how many inmates 4 filed grievances against Vargas for "theft, loss, destruction, or 5 negligence of inmates' property?" 6 Ex. D, at 112, ECF No. 130.) 7 Trujillo are the same, and each asks how many inmate grievances had 8 been brought against the Defendant for "misconduct." 9 113.) ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Interrogatories 11 to Vargas and (Id. at 67, Vargas and Trujillo objected to the interrogatories on (Id. at 67-68, 112-14.) 10 privacy, privilege, and relevance grounds. 11 They also objected that the information sought by Plaintiff was 12 unrelated to any claim or defense of any party. 13 113-14.) (Id. at 67-68, 14 Vargas answered interrogatories 10 and 11 stating, 15 respectively, "I've had a grievance filed before, but I don't 16 remember the details. 17 sustained[,]" and "I do not know." 18 answered by stating, "I don't know. 19 recall getting any grievances, and if I did, none have been 20 sustained or upheld of which I am aware." 21 moves to compel on the basis that Vargas and Trujillo did not refer 22 to appropriate prison records in their responses. 23 Compel 3-5, ECF No. 130.) 24 25 i. To my understanding, it was not (Id. at 113-14.) Trujillo Maybe one, if that. (Id. at 68.) I don't Franklin ([Am.] Mot. Relevance In the Opposition, Defendants contend that the information 26 sought by Plaintiff is irrelevant because it will not assist him in 27 proving his claims of retaliation and complaint about constant 28 illumination. (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 9-10, 26, ECF 39 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 No. 116.) 2 is relevant to the accusation that Vargas stole Franklin's 3 envelopes and forged his signature. 4 ECF No. 79.) 5 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 6 incidents may suggest that Vargas has taken personal property from 7 other inmates, and this may lead to the discovery of admissible 8 evidence. 9 Vargas's relevance objection is overruled. 10 Vargas interrogatories 10 and 11 seek information that (See Fourth Am. Compl. 6-7, Plaintiff's interrogatories appear to be reasonably Other This could bear on Franklin's retaliation claim. Trujillo interrogatory 11 is relevant for the same reasons, 11 and the objection is overruled. 12 Franklin seeks information pertaining to misconduct that is not 13 alleged in the Complaint, the questions are overbroad. 14 the Vargas should supplement his response to Vargas interrogatory 15 11 to include information concerning the number of grievances filed 16 by other inmates pertaining to theft, forgery, or retaliation. 17 Trujillo should supplement his response to Trujillo interrogatory 18 11 to include information concerning the number of grievances filed 19 by other inmates pertaining to confining inmates to their cells, 20 prohibiting them from using the recreation yard, and retaliation. 21 22 Nonetheless, to the extent Therefore, ii. Privacy Next, Defendants object that these interrogatories violate 23 their privacy, as well as the privacy other inmates who may have 24 filed grievances. 25 ECF No. 116.) 26 (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 9-10, 26 Some courts consider the right to privacy as a qualified 27 privilege and analyze it in a similar way as the federal official 28 information privilege. See Taylor v. 40 L.A. Police Dep't, No. 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 EDCV99-0383-RT (RCX), 1999 WL 33101661, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2 1999); Martinez v. City of Stockton, 132 F.R.D. 677, 681 (E.D. Cal. 3 1990). 4 the information outweighs the nonmovant's privacy rights. 5 1999 WL 33101661, at *6 . 6 have found that the privacy interests police officers have in their 7 personnel files do not outweigh the civil rights plaintiff's need 8 for the documents." 9 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 10 11 The movant may obtain private information when his need for Taylor, "[D]istrict courts in the Ninth Circuit Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 There is an important public interest in uncovering civil rights violations. Id. Franklin seeks relevant information regarding the number of 12 other similar grievances against Defendants, and the information is 13 unlikely to be available from a source other than Defendants' 14 personnel files. 15 interests will be minimized by a protective order. 16 F.R.D. at 617; see also Taylor, 1999 WL 33101661, at *7 . Further, 17 Franklin has not requested the names of any inmates who filed 18 grievances against Vargas, so their privacy rights would not be 19 implicated. 20 WL 4513405, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010) (ordering redaction of 21 the names of the inmates who filed grievances against correctional 22 officer before documents were provided to plaintiff). Consequently, 23 the privacy objection is overruled. 24 25 See id. Any invasion of the Defendants' privacy Soto, 162 See Lamon v. Adams, No. 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-SKOPC, 2010 iii. Waived objections Vargas states that it would be an undue burden to further 26 respond to interrogatory 11. 27 10, ECF No. 116.) 28 interrogatory 11 is vague and overbroad as to the term (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement Additionally, Vargas argues that Plaintiff's 41 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 "misconduct." 2 these grounds. (Id.) Yet, Defendant did not initially object on Accordingly, these objections were waived. 3 Trujillo also asserts that requiring him to provide further 4 responses would be an undue burden and would needlessly increase 5 the costs of litigation. 6 initially object on these grounds, thus the objections were waived. 7 8 9 iv. (Id. at 26.) Again, Defendant did not Sufficiency of Defendants' responses As discussed above, the responses provided by these Defendants are not sufficient because they do not provide the information 10 requested by Franklin, nor do they state under oath why they are 11 unable to provide it. 12 Accordingly, Franklin's Motion to Compel further responses to 13 Vargas interrogatories 10 and 11 and Trujillo interrogatory 11 [ECF 14 No. 130] is GRANTED. 15 d. Davis interrogatory 5 16 Plaintiff inquires in Davis interrogatory 5, "How many 17 inmates, from January 2007 until July 2007, on A-facility in the 18 general population have received a rule violation report for having 19 something or a state shirt or property covering their light?" 20 ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 94, ECF No. 130.) 21 objected that the question was vague, and on privacy and relevance 22 grounds. 23 Franklin moves to compel on the basis that Davis did not refer to 24 appropriate prison records in his response. 25 ECF No. 130.) 26 27 28 (Id. at 95.) i. He answered, "I don't know." Davis (Id.) ([Am.] Mot. Compel 6, Relevance Davis argues that Plaintiff's question is outside the scope of discovery because it will not help Franklin prove his claims of 42 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 retaliation and constant illumination. 2 Statement 35, ECF No. 116.) 3 relevance objection. 4 Davis violated Franklin's Due Process rights when Davis found 5 Plaintiff guilty of a serious rule violation for covering a light 6 in his cell with a shirt. 7 Interrogatory 5 seeks information that is relevant to his claim 8 that Defendant retaliated against Franklin for filing the 2007 9 lawsuit against Davis. 10 ii. 11 (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate The Court construes this as a In his Complaint, Plaintiff submits that (Fourth Am. Compl. 6, ECF No. 79.) Vagueness Defendant also contends that the phrase "something or a state 12 shirt or property covering their light" is vague. (Opp'n Attach. 13 #3 Separate Statement 35, ECF No. 116.) 14 is clear. 15 covering the lights in their cells, during a specific period of 16 time, in a specific building -- be it with a shirt, or any other 17 item of personal property. 18 the quoted phrase is vague. 19 overruled. Franklin's interrogatory He asks how many inmates received a rule violation for 20 Further, Davis does not articulate why Accordingly, the objection is iii. Privacy 21 Next, Davis complains that Plaintiff's question violates the 22 privacy of any inmates who may have received a rule violation. 23 (Id.) 24 filed grievances against Davis, so their privacy rights would not 25 be implicated. 26 27 28 Franklin has not requested the names of any inmates who The privacy objection is overruled. iv. Waived objections Finally, Davis contends that the question is "overly burdensome" and overbroad. (Id. (citing id. Decl. Borg Attach. 43 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 #2).) He did not initially object on these grounds, so these 2 objections were waived. 3 v. Sufficiency of Davis's response 4 Davis's response of "I don't know" is insufficient. 5 Accordingly, the Motion to Compel a further response to Davis 6 interrogatory 5 [ECF No. 130] is GRANTED. 7 e. 8 9 Davis interrogatories 8 and 9 Franklin asks in interrogatory 8, "How many times were you the hearing officer from 2004 until July 14, 2007, when an inmate 10 received a rule violation for covering the cell ceiling light?" 11 ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 96, ECF No. 130.) 12 interrogatory 9, Plaintiff asks, "How many people did you find 13 guilty of a serious rule violation at Calipatria State Prison for 14 covering a cell ceiling light from 2004 until July 14, 2007?" 15 (Id.) 16 (Id. at 96-97.) 17 interrogatories were vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. 18 (Id.) 19 In Davis objected to both on privacy and relevance grounds. Defendant additionally objected that the Davis answered interrogatory 8 by stating, "I don't know." 20 (Id. at 97.) 21 lot, but I don't recall a specific number." 22 to compel because Davis did not refer to appropriate prison records 23 in his responses. 24 i. 25 He answered interrogatory 9 by stating, "Probably a (Id.) Franklin moves ([Am.] Mot. Compel 7, ECF No. 130.) Relevance Defendant alleges that procuring the information sought in 26 both interrogatories would not assist Plaintiff in proving his 27 claims. 28 The Court construes this as a relevance objection. (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 36-37, ECF No. 116.) 44 The information 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 sought by Plaintiff may be relevant to support his claim that he 2 was specifically targeted by Davis when he found Franklin guilty of 3 a serious rule violation for covering a light in his cell. 4 Fourth Am. Compl. 6, ECF No. 79.) 5 ii. 6 (See The objection is overruled. Burdensomeness According to Davis, procuring the documents needed to provide 7 an answer to this interrogatory would be "overly burdensome" 8 because records are not maintained in a fashion that allows him to 9 readily obtain the information needed to answer this interrogatory. 10 (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 36, ECF No. 116.) 11 then explains the "onerous" process involved in procuring this 12 information, which includes reviewing hearing logs, analyzing the 13 present prison location or parole status of over 4,000 inmates, 14 reviewing each inmate's central file, and filtering those results 15 by hearing officer. (Id.) 16 Defendant "Under Rule 26(b)(2), courts must weigh the burden or expense 17 of proposed discovery against its likely benefit, taking into 18 account 'the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the 19 parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the 20 litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in 21 resolving the issues.'" 22 Cal. 2003) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(2)) (citing Graham v. 23 Casey's Gen. Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 253 (S.D. Ind. 2002); Smith v. 24 Pfizer, Inc., No. CIV.A. 98-4156-CM, 2000 WL 1679483, at *2 (D. 25 Kan. Oct. 26, 2000); Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 60 F. Supp. 26 2d 1050, 1053-54 (S.D. Cal. 1999)). Green v. Baca, 219 F.R.D. 485, 493 (C.D. 27 Here, the information sought by Plaintiff is central to his 28 claim that he was punished for covering the lightbulb located in 45 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 his cell, while other inmates were not. Furthermore, Franklin's 2 interrogatory is drafted with sufficient precision to obtain 3 material relevant to this case. 4 be "overly burdened" by procuring the information for Plaintiff, 5 but he does not establish that the benefit Franklin derives from 6 obtaining at least some of the information is outweighed by the 7 burden imposed on Defendant. 8 Stores, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-01148-KJD-GWF, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9 130038, at *14-15 (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2011) (finding that a document Defendant has alleged that he will See id.; see also Pham v. Wal-Mart 10 request requiring "just over 56 hours" to review and locate 11 responsive information was not an undue burden). Accordingly, this 12 objection is overruled in part. 13 14 iii. Sufficiency of Davis's response Davis maintains that his response to interrogatory 8 is 15 sufficient because he has provided an unequivocal, verified 16 response stating that he does not know the answer to Plaintiff's 17 question. 18 Defendant also represents that no further response is needed as to 19 interrogatory 9 because he answered it to the best of his ability. 20 (Id. at 37.) 21 under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 22 Dist. LEXIS 48380, at *5. 23 further responses to Davis interrogatories 8 and 9 [ECF No. 130] is 24 GRANTED in part. 25 for the time period from July 14, 2005, through July 14, 2007. (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 36, ECF No. 116.) The responses provided by Defendant are insufficient See Haworth, 2007 U.S. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel A response should be given to each interrogatory 26 27 28 46 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 f. 2 3 Davis interrogatories 11-13 and Madden interrogatories 16-17 Franklin inquires in Davis interrogatory 11, "Have you ever 4 been sued as a staff for misconduct while performing your duty for 5 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation?" 6 Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 98, ECF No. 130.) 7 12 to Davis asks, "If you were sued for misconduct, by whom, for 8 what, location, and dates it occurred?" 9 asks in Davis interrogatory 13, "If you were sued for misconduct, 10 11 ([Am.] Interrogatory (Id. at 100.) Franklin (Id. at 101.) what was the final disposition?" In Madden interrogatory 16, Plaintiff asks, "If you have ever 12 been sued for misconduct, by whom, for what, where it occurred, and 13 the dates it occurred." 14 interrogatory 17 what the final dispositions in those cases were. 15 (Id. at 86.) 16 (Id. at 85.) Franklin then asks Madden in Defendants objected to all the interrogatories on privacy, 17 privilege, and relevance grounds. 18 argued that the information sought by Plaintiff was all obtainable 19 from public sources that are more convenient, less burdensome, and 20 less expensive to the Defendants. 21 Finally, they objected that the questions were vague, overbroad, 22 unduly burdensome, and unrelated to any claim or defense of any 23 party. 24 (Id. 85-87, 98-102.) They also (Id. at 86-87, 99-102.) (Id. at 85-87, 99-103.) Davis answered interrogatory 11 by stating, "At least one 25 other time, maybe a couple times. 26 deposition taken or testified in trial regarding a lawsuit brought 27 by an inmate." 28 stating, "I don't recall specific information." (Id. at 100.) I'm not sure. I've never had my He answered interrogatory 12 by 47 (Id. at 101.) As 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 to interrogatory 13, he responded by stating, "I never heard of any 2 disposition relating to this lawsuit." 3 (Id. at 103.) Defendant Madden responded to interrogatory 16 by stating, "I 4 don't recall why I was sued and I don't remember the dates." 5 at 86.) 6 know, but I didn't go to court and there were no settlements to my 7 understanding." 8 basis that Davis and Madden did not refer to appropriate prison 9 records in their responses. He responded to interrogatory 17 by stating, "I don't 10 11 (Id. (Id. at 88.) i. Franklin moves to compel on the ([Am.] Mot. Compel 7-8, ECF No. 130.) Relevance Defendants object that these questions are irrelevant and will 12 not assist Franklin in proving his claims. 13 Separate Statement 39, 41, 43, 53, 55, ECF No. 116.) 14 interrogatories relate to prior lawsuits brought against Defendants 15 for alleged misconduct they committed as a correctional officer. 16 If Defendants have been sued for similar retaliatory conduct, it 17 may lead to admissible evidence regarding whether these Defendants 18 retaliated against Franklin. 19 overruled. 20 21 ii. (Opp'n Attach. #3 All of these Accordingly, this objection is Equal access Next, Defendants complain that the information sought by 22 Plaintiff is a matter of public record. 23 present any argument supporting why he is unable to obtain these 24 records. 25 argument to shift the cost and burden of obtaining the court 26 records to the Defendants. 27 effort to answer these interrogatories. (Id.) Franklin does not In addition, the Plaintiff has not offered a persuasive At the same time, Defendants made no 28 48 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 In Robinson v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-SMS PC, 2011 WL 2 2118753, at *17 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2011), the Defendants answered a 3 similar interrogatory by providing Plaintiff with a "supplemental 4 response listing cases." 5 excessive force cases, but the court concluded that the information 6 could be obtained from public records that were equally available 7 to Plaintiff, and it would not compel a further response. 8 Davis and Madden should similarly provide a list of cases. 9 Accordingly, the objection is overruled, and Franklin's Motion to Robinson asked that Defendants identify Id. 10 Compel further responses to Davis interrogatories 12-13 and Madden 11 interrogatories 16-17 [ECF No. 130] is GRANTED in part; the Motion 12 to Compel a further response to interrogatory 11 to Davis is 13 DENIED. 14 g. 15 Davis interrogatory 14 Interrogatory 14 asks Davis to "List the dates, months, years 16 you were lieutenant on A-facility at Calipatria State Prison." 17 (Id. at 103.) 18 (Id.) 19 or defense. 20 Defendant objected on privacy and privilege grounds. He also argued that the question was unrelated to any claim (Id.) Davis answered, "I don't know. I was there for about nine and 21 a half years as a lieutenant and twenty years in total." 22 104.) 23 refer to appropriate prison records in his response. 24 Compel 7, ECF No. 130.) 25 26 (Id. at Franklin moves to compel on the basis that Davis did not i. ([Am.] Mot. Relevance Defendant asserts that providing any further information would 27 be a waste of time and resources and would not assist Plaintiff in 28 proving his claims. (Opp'n Attach. #3, Separate Statement 44, ECF 49 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 No. 44.) 2 Whether Davis was working in A-Facility during the events giving 3 rise to this lawsuit is relevant. 4 ii. 5 The Court construes this as a relevance objection. The objection is overruled. Waived objection Davis also submits that interrogatory 14 is the same as Davis 6 interrogatory number 1. 7 borders on harassment. 8 object that this interrogatory was repetitive, thereby waiving the 9 objection. 10 11 (Id.) (Id.) He insists that this repetition Yet, Defendant did not initially iii. Sufficiency of Davis's response Plaintiff requests Defendant to provide the dates that he was 12 employed at Calipatria State Prison. 13 this information and fails to state under oath why he is unable to 14 provide it. 15 the Motion to Compel a further response to Davis interrogatory 14 16 [ECF No. 130] is GRANTED. 17 18 h. Defendant fails to provide Accordingly, Defendant's response is insufficient, and Madden interrogatories 6, 8, and 13 Franklin asks in Madden interrogatory 6, "How many inmates, 19 from January 1, 2007 until October 7, 2007, on A-facility general 20 population have received two serious rule violation reports or one 21 serious and two administrative rule violation reports within 180 22 days?" 23 In Madden interrogatory 8, Plaintiff inquires, "How many inmates, 24 from January 2007 until July 2007, on A-facility in the general 25 population, have received a rule violation report for having 26 something or state property covering their lights?" 27 Interrogatory 13 asks Madden, "How [m]any people did you find 28 guilty of a serious rule violation at Calipatria State Prison for ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 77, ECF No. 130.) 50 (Id. at 78.) 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 covering a cell ceiling light [from] 2004 until July 2007?" 2 at 82.) 3 overbroad, and unduly burdensome. 4 objected on privacy and relevance grounds. 5 (Id. Defendant objected that the interrogatories were vague, (Id. at 77-78, 82.) He also (Id.) Madden answered all these interrogatories by stating, "I don't 6 know." (Id. at 77, 79, 82.) 7 Davis did not refer to appropriate prison records in his responses. 8 ([Am.] Mot. Compel 8, ECF No. 130.) 9 i. Plaintiff moves to compel because Relevance 10 Defendant asserts that these questions seek irrelevant 11 information that will not help Plaintiff prove his claim of 12 retaliation and complaint about constant illumination. (Opp'n 13 Attach. #3 Separate Statement 47-49, 51, ECF No. 116.) In his 14 Complaint, Franklin insists that Madden upheld Defendant Arias's 15 charge that Plaintiff committed a serious rule violation by 16 covering up a light in his cell. 17 79.) 18 relevant to prove that Defendant Madden did not apply prison 19 regulations to all inmates in a uniform manner. 20 be relevant to Plaintiff's claims that Defendant retaliated against 21 Franklin for suing Madden in 2007. 22 to interrogatory 6 but overruled as to interrogatories 8 and 13. As discussed above, the information sought by Franklin may be 23 ii. 24 (Fourth Am. Compl. 6, ECF No. The response may The objection is sustained as Privacy Next, Madden urges that Franklin's requests violate the 25 privacy of other inmates who may have received rule violation 26 reports. 27 116.) 28 received violation reports or were found guilty of a violation, so (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 47, 49, 51, ECF No. Plaintiff has not requested the names of any inmates who 51 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 their privacy rights would not be implicated. 2 may seek a protective order. 3 4 Further, the parties The privacy objection is overruled. iii. Burdensomeness Defendant contends that procuring responsive documents to 5 these interrogatories would be unduly or "overly" burdensome 6 because records are not maintained in a fashion that allows 7 Defendant to readily obtain the information needed to answer this 8 interrogatory. 9 6 and 13 Madden complains about the process involved in acquiring (Id. at 48-49, 51.) (Id. at 48, 51.) In response to interrogatories He also cites the Declaration 10 this information. 11 of Robert Borg in support of the objections. 12 (Id. at 51.) Defendant has alleged that he will be burdened by acquiring 13 the information, but he does not show that the benefit Franklin 14 derives from obtaining at least some of the information is 15 outweighed by that burden. 16 17 iv. Vagueness Madden also objects that interrogatories 8 and 13 are vague. 18 (Id. at 49, 51.) 19 questions are vague. 20 21 This objection is overruled in part. v. Yet, Defendant does not explain why these The objection is overruled. Overbreadth Next, Madden complains that interrogatories 8 and 13 are 22 overbroad. (Id.) 23 'overbroad' does not suffice to state a proper objection." 24 Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc., Civil No. WDQ–11–2824, 2012 WL 25 2445046, at *6 (D. Md. June 27, 2012) (quoting Cappetta v. GC 26 Servs. Ltd. P'ship, No. 3:08cv288, 2008 WL 5377934, at *3 (E.D. Va. 27 Dec. 24, 2008)). 28 part of a request is overbroad, and why.'" "Merely stating that an interrogatory is Lynn v. "Instead, the 'objecting party must specify which 52 Id. Here, Defendant 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 fails to state why the interrogatories are overbroad; accordingly, 2 the objection is overruled. 3 vi. 4 Waived objections Finally, Defendant objects to both interrogatory 8 and 13 on 5 the basis that they are duplicative of interrogatories to Defendant 6 Davis. 7 Yet, as discussed above, Defendant did not initially object on this 8 ground, so the objection was waived. (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 49, 51 ECF No. 116.) 9 vii. Sufficiency of Madden's responses 10 Madden answered all interrogatories by stating, "I don't 11 know." ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 77, 79, 82, ECF No. 12 130.) 13 Madden interrogatories 8 and 13 [ECF No. 130] is GRANTED, but 14 interrogatory 13 is limited to the period from July 14, 2005, 15 through July 14, 2007; Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED as to 16 interrogatory 6. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel further responses to 17 i. 18 Warden Small interrogatory 7 Franklin asks Small, "If there was a policy at Calipatria 19 State Prison general population about the cell ceiling light that 20 never cut-off and produce[d] constant illumination, what was the 21 policy?" 22 vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant. 23 44.) 24 (Id. at 43.) Defendant objected that the question was (Id. at 43- Small responded by stating, "I do not recall a specific policy 25 regarding the lights. 26 Cell Standards, and Department Operations Manual (DOM) Sections 27 54030.17 through 54030.21.7.2, Inmate Property Authorized Personal 28 Property Schedule (APPS) incorporated into California Code of However, Operational Procedure 4006, Inmate 53 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 Regulations (CCR), Title 15 Sections 3190 and 3191, detail the 2 property authorized and cell standards expected for CDCR." 3 44.) 4 refer to appropriate prison records in his response. 5 Compel 9, ECF No. 130.) Franklin moves to compel on the basis that Small did not 6 7 (Id. at i. ([Am.] Mot. Waived objection In his Opposition, Defendant asserts that this interrogatory 8 is "virtually identical to interrogatory 6[.]" 9 Separate Statement 59, ECF No. 116.) (Opp'n Attach. #3 Yet, Small did not initially 10 object that the interrogatory was repetitive, so this objection was 11 waived. 12 43-44, ECF No. 130.) (Compare id., with [Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 13 14 ii. Other objections Defendant also notes that requiring further responses would 15 "needlessly add to the cost of litigation and would not assist 16 plaintiff in proving his claims." 17 Statement 59, ECF No. 116.) 18 supplement his initial objections, the blanket objections are 19 unavailing. 20 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77962, at *50 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2012) 21 (stating that boilerplate objections are insufficient). 22 objections are overruled. 23 24 (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate To the extent these statements See Marti v. Baires, No. 1:08-cv-00653-AWI-SKO PC, These iii. Sufficiency of Small's response If Small is unable to recall a specific policy governing the 25 cell lights, he must state under oath the efforts he made to 26 respond to Franklin's interrogatory. 27 explain how the regulations cited in his answer to interrogatory 7 28 are responsive and correlate with his answer to interrogatory 6. 54 Further, Defendant should 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 The Motion to Compel a further response to interrogatory 7 [ECF No. 2 130] is GRANTED. 3 j. 4 Vargas interrogatories 3 and 5-9 In interrogatory 3, Franklin asks, "On April 6, 2007, in A-2 5 Building at Calipatria State Prison, did you search Plaintiff's 6 cell and take Plaintiff's legal books, legal papers, and universal 7 adapter?" 8 130.) 9 took Plaintiff's property, on April 6, 2006, was each piece of ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 108, ECF No. In Vargas interrogatory 5, Plaintiff inquires, "When you (Id. at 109.) In interrogatory 6, 10 property fully described?" 11 Franklin asks who reviewed the property that Vargas confiscated 12 from the April 6, 2006 search. 13 inquires about what happened to the legal books, legal papers, and 14 adapter that Vargas took during that search. 15 interrogatory 8, Franklin asks why Vargas took these items during 16 the search. 17 Vargas received notice that Plaintiff filed a grievance against 18 Defendant for taking the property on April 6, 2006. 19 (Id. at 111.) (Id. at 110.) Interrogatory 7 (Id.) In In interrogatory 9, Franklin asks when (Id. at 112.) Vargas initially objected that interrogatory 3 was vague, 20 overbroad, and irrelevant. 21 interrogatories 5 through 9 assume facts; lack foundation; and were 22 vague, overbroad, and irrelevant. 23 (Id. at 108-09.) He also objected that (Id. at 109-12.) Defendant answered interrogatory 3 by stating, "I don't 24 remember." 25 "I cannot remember." 26 Vargas answered, "Usually an inmate signs and dates property that 27 has been confiscated." 28 8, Defendant answered, "I do not know." (Id. at 109.) For interrogatory 5, Defendant answered, (Id. at 110.) (Id.) In Vargas interrogatory 6, In response to interrogatories 7 and 55 (Id. at 111.) Defendant 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 answered interrogatory 9 by stating, "I don't remember getting 2 notice." 3 did not refer to appropriate prison records in his responses. 4 ([Am.] Mot. Compel 3, ECF No. 130.) (Id. at 112.) 5 i. Plaintiff moves to compel because Vargas Assumes facts not in evidence 6 In his Opposition, Defendant argues that in interrogatories 5- 7 8, Franklin assumes facts that are not true because Vargas does not 8 remember the April 6, 2006 search taking place, and a diligent 9 search of the records by Robert Borg indicates that no confiscation 10 of Franklin's property took place as alleged. 11 Separate Statement 5-7, ECF No. 116.) 12 evidence may be the basis for an objection during trial or some 13 other evidentiary hearing. 14 Clark, No. 1:10-cv-00447-LJO-DLB PC, 2012 WL 1232315, at *2 (E.D. 15 Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (citing 16 F.R.D. 290, 298 (D.C. Pa. 1980) ("That an interrogatory may contain 17 an element of conclusion is not objectionable on this ground 18 alone.")). 19 20 (Opp'n Attach. #3 "Assuming facts not in This however, is discovery." Garcia v. Roesberg v. Johns-Manville Corp., 85 The objection is misplaced and, therefore, overruled. ii. Relevance In his Complaint, Franklin makes no reference to an alleged 21 search of his cell that occurred on either April 6, 2006 or 2007. 22 (See generally Fourth Am. Compl. 4-16, ECF No. 79.) 23 not pursue a relevance objection in his Opposition to any of these 24 interrogatories. 25 Statement 2-16, ECF No. 116.) 26 pursue this objection, the Court will not order discovery of 27 irrelevant information. Defendant did (See generally Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Despite Defendant's failure to See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 28 56 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to 2 Vargas interrogatories 3 and 5-9 [ECF No. 130] is DENIED. 3 4 k. Vargas interrogatory 14 In interrogatory 14, Franklin inquires, "Is that your 5 signature on inmates' envelopes issuing log sheet, on July 18, 2007 6 and July 25, 2007?" 7 ECF No. 130.) 8 overbroad, and irrelevant. 9 stating, "I don't know. ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 115, Vargas objected that the question was vague, (Id.) Defendant then responded by I don't have the document to which (Id. at 116.) Franklin moves to compel 10 plaintiff is referring." 11 because Defendant did not refer to appropriate prison records in 12 his response. ([Am.] Mot. Compel 4, ECF No. 130.) i. 13 Relevance 14 Vargas contends that in his grievance, Plaintiff did not 15 reference a delivery problem on July 25, and therefore Vargas 16 objects based on relevance and Franklin's failure to exhaust his 17 administrative remedies. 18 ECF No. 116.) 19 to Franklin's accusation that Vargas stole Plaintiff's envelopes 20 and may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 21 relevance objection is overruled. 22 ii. 23 (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 13, Interrogatory 14 seeks information that is relevant The Vagueness In his Opposition, Defendant notes that Franklin "was 24 initially too vague in referencing the document." 25 #3 Separate Statement 13, ECF No. 116.) 26 has the burden of proving that Franklin's request is vague. 27 Defendant does not articulate how the straightforward request is 28 vague. (Opp'n Attach. As discussed above, Vargas The objection is overruled. 57 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 iii. Sufficiency of Vargas's response 2 Next, Vargas maintains that he obtained an "envelopes-issuing 3 log sheet for July 18," and he unequivocally denies that his 4 signature is on the page. 5 verified response will be given. 6 received any supplemental verified response. 7 seeks to deny that his signature is on the envelope-issuing log 8 sheet, he must deny it under oath. 9 deficient. 10 (Id.) He states that a supplemental (Id.) To date, the Court has not To the extent Vargas As is, his current response is Accordingly, the Motion to Compel a further response to Vargas interrogatory 14 [ECF No. 130] is GRANTED. 11 l. Warden Small interrogatory 10 12 Franklin asks Defendant Small, "How many complaints or 13 grievances (verbal, written, staff, Men's Advisory Committee) did 14 you receive ab[o]ut the cell ceiling light that never cut-off and 15 produce[d] constant illumination?" 16 Ex. D, at 45, ECF No. 130.) 17 vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant. 18 46.) 19 ([Am.] Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Small objected that the question was He also objected on privacy grounds. (Id. at 45- (Id. at 46.) Defendant answered by stating, "I do not know." (Id.) 20 Plaintiff moves to compel on the basis that Small did not refer to 21 appropriate prison records in this response. 22 ECF No. 130.) 23 24 i. ([Am.] Mot. Compel 9, Relevance Defendant represents that the information sought by Franklin 25 is irrelevant and will not help prove his claims. 26 #3 Separate Statement 60, ECF No. 116.) 27 argues that in May 2008, Small issued a memorandum that prohibited 28 covering the lights located in the individual cells of the prison. 58 (Opp'n Attach. In his Complaint, Franklin 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 (Fourth Am. Compl. 16, ECF No. 79.) 2 he was written up in July of 2007 for covering an "unconstitutional 3 cell light." 4 against Small, Franklin must allege facts that demonstrate that he 5 was confined under conditions posing a risk of "objectively, 6 sufficiently serious" harm and that prison officials had a 7 "sufficiently culpable state of mind in allowing the deprivation to 8 take place." 9 complaints from other Calipatria inmates may be relevant to prove (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff also complains that To prevail on his Eighth Amendment claim Wallis, 70 F.3d at 1076. Evidence of grievances or 10 that Small was aware that the harm Franklin was suffering was 11 objectively serious and may bear on Plaintiff's retaliation claim. 12 The relevance objection is overruled. 13 ii. 14 Overbreadth Small also argues that the interrogatory is "overbroad in that 15 it is not limited as to time." 16 interrogatory, Plaintiff does not refer to a specific time period. 17 Accordingly, to the extent Defendant is ordered to respond, his 18 answer should reflect those complaints and grievances after July 19 14, 2007. 20 objection is sustained. 21 (Opp'n 60, ECF No. 116.) (See Fourth Am. Compl. 5, ECF No. 79). In this Otherwise, the iii. Burdensomeness Finally, Defendant alleges that acquiring the information 22 23 requested by Plaintiff would be "prohibitively burdensome" because 24 CDCR does not maintain its records in a manner that allows for 25 ready access to the information sought. 26 116.) 27 not adequately shown that this process is so unduly burdensome, in (Opp'n 60-61, ECF No. Small describes the process involved. (Id.) Defendant has 28 59 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 light of Plaintiff's need for the information. 2 overruled. 3 iv. The objection is Sufficiency of Small's response 4 Defendant's response of "I do not know" is insufficient. 5 Accordingly, the Motion to Compel a further response to Small 6 interrogatory 10 [ECF No. 130] is GRANTED. 7 8 9 m. Hopper interrogatories 6 and 7 Franklin inquires in Hopper interrogatory 6, "Were you the senior hearing officer in any of Plaintiff's disciplinary 10 hearings?" 11 Interrogatory 7 asks, "On August 18, 2007, did you sit in on 12 Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing, making comments to influence 13 Plaintiff was guilty [sic] of the rule violation he received, on 14 August 11, 2007, for refusing a lawful order?" 15 (Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Ex. D, at 57, ECF No. 130.) (Id. at 58.) Defendant objected that both questions were vague, irrelevant, 16 overbroad, and unduly burdensome. 17 objected that the information sought by Franklin is obtainable from 18 another source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less 19 expensive. 20 (Id. at 57-58.) He also (Id.) Hopper responded to interrogatory 6 by stating, "If I was a 21 sergeant I couldn't have been because the senior hearing officers 22 has [sic] to be lieutenant or above." 23 answered interrogatory 7 by stating, "I may have been called as a 24 witness, but I don't recall." 25 compel on the basis that Hopper did not refer to appropriate prison 26 records in these responses. (Id. at 57.) (Id. at 58.) Defendant Franklin moves to ([Am.] Mot. Compel 6, ECF No. 130.) 27 28 60 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 2 i. Vagueness In his Opposition to Hopper interrogatory 6, Defendant 3 maintains that Plaintiff's interrogatory is vague and unlimited as 4 to time. 5 As is, interrogatory 6 is vague as to time. 6 Defendant is ordered to respond, he should restrict his response to 7 those disciplinary hearings occurring after Plaintiff filed his 8 first lawsuit against Hopper in March 2007. 9 (Opp'n Attach. #3 Separate Statement 31, ECF No. 116.) To the extent As to Hopper interrogatory 7, Defendant contends that 10 Franklin's interrogatory is "too vague." 11 not articulate why the interrogatory is vague. 12 Yet, Hopper does overruled. ii. 13 (Id.) The objection is Waived objections 14 Defendant objects to interrogatory 7 on the basis that 15 Plaintiff's interrogatory is argumentative, compound, and assumes 16 facts. 17 on these grounds. 18 19 (Id. at 31-32.) Hopper, however, did not initially object These objections were waived. iii. Sufficiency of Hopper's responses Hopper argues that his response to interrogatory 6 is 20 sufficient because he comprehensively answered Plaintiff's question 21 by stating that Hopper could never be the senior hearing officer 22 for one of Franklin's hearings. 23 statement to avoid answer is no answer." 24 Am., Inc., 56 F.R.D 569, 574 (W.D. Mo. 1971); see Ruiz v. 25 Hamburg-Am. Line, 478 F.2d 29, 33 (9th Cir. 1973) ("Misleading and 26 evasive answers to interrogatories justify the court's viewing with 27 suspicion the contentions of the party so answering."). 28 Defendant's response in interrogatory 6 is evasive because he does (Id. at 31.) 61 "[A]n evasive Bollard v. Vokswagen of 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 not state whether he was the senior hearing officer at any of 2 Plaintiff's disciplinary hearings. 3 Defendant also asserts that his response to interrogatory 7 is 4 adequate because the interrogatory "asks Sergeant Hopper to concede 5 facts that no record could substantiate." 6 Separate Statement 32, ECF No. 116.) 7 under oath any steps he took to attempt to answer even a portion of 8 Franklin's question. 9 Accordingly, the Motion to Compel further responses to Hopper (Opp'n Attach. #3 Yet, Defendant has not stated The response is therefore insufficient. 10 interrogatories 6 and 7 [ECF No. 130] is GRANTED. 11 D. 12 Requests for Admission Franklin also moves to compel further responses to his 13 requests for admission. 14 There, Plaintiff argues: 15 16 17 ([Am.] Mot. Compel 1, ECF No. 130.) [A]n answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny [a request for admission] unless the party states that the party has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by the party is insufficient to enable the party to admit or deny. 18 19 (Id. at 11 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)).) 20 copy of his requests for admission as an exhibit to his Motion to 21 Compel. 22 Franklin attached a (See id. Ex. B.) In their Opposition, Defendants contend that this portion of 23 Plaintiff's motion should be denied because Defendants were unable 24 to respond with a simple "admit or deny." 25 They assert that the requests contain Franklin's summaries and 26 interpretations of law, which are of questionable accuracy. 27 Further, they allege that Plaintiff's requests were nonsensical, 28 compound, and vague. (Opp'n 12, ECF No. 116.) (Id.) (Id.) 62 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 In the Motion to Compel, Franklin does not specify which 2 requests for admissions he seeks to compel. 3 Mot. Compel 1-9, ECF No. 130.) 4 his requests for admission to his motion. 5 will not suffice. 6 (See generally [Am.] Plaintiff merely attached a copy of (See id. Ex. B.) This [A]t a minimum, as the moving party plaintiff has the burden of informing the court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, which of defendants' responses are disputed, why he believes defendants' responses are deficient, why defendants' objections are not justified, and why the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. 7 8 9 10 11 Masterson v. Campbell, No. CIV S–05–0192 JAM DAD P, 2009 WL 12 2824754, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2009) (citing Brooks v. 13 Alameida, No. CIV S–03–2343 JAM EFB P, 2009 WL 331358, at *2 14 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) ("Without knowing which responses 15 plaintiff seeks to compel or on what grounds, the court cannot 16 grant plaintiff's motion."); Ellis v. Cambra, No. CIV F–02–5646 AWI 17 SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 27, 2008) ("Plaintiff 18 must inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of 19 his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the 20 court why the information sought is relevant and why Defendant's 21 objections are not justified.")). Franklin did not specify what responses he seeks to compel and 22 23 why. See Masterson, 2009 WL 2824754, at *2. 24 review each of plaintiff's discovery requests and each of 25 defendants' responses thereto in order to determine whether any of 26 the defendants' responses are somehow deficient." 27 Williams v. Flint, No. CIV S 06–1238 FCD GGH P, 2007 WL 2274520, at 28 *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007) ("It is plaintiff's burden to describe 63 "The [C]ourt will not Id. (citing 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 why a particular response is inadequate. 2 generally argue that all responses are incomplete.")); see also Bd. 3 of Trs. of the Sheet Metal Workers Health Care Plan v. Vigil, No. 4 C08-181-JLR, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28171, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 5 2011) (citing Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 775 6 (9th Cir. 2002)) ("[T]his Court has discretion to refuse to 7 consider evidence that the offering party fails to cite with 8 sufficient specificity."). 9 response to his requests for admission [ECF No. 130] is DENIED. 10 11 E. It is not enough to Franklin's Motion to Compel a further Sanctions In his Motion, Plaintiff briefly notes that when a party fails 12 to respond to a discovery request, sanctions may be imposed. 13 ([Am.] Mot. Compel 10, ECF No. 130 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37).) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 In response, Defendants argue that Franklin's reference to sanctions is inappropriate for several reasons: (a) [T]here is no proper request or notice for any particular sanctions; (b) no showing for an award of sanctions has been made; (c) responding parties have provided good faith responses to all of the subject discovery; (d) the responses provided are substantially justified; and (e) plaintiff has not incurred any recoverable costs or fees in connection with this motion. (Resp. 2, 4, ECF No. 133.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) provides that if the 22 Court grants a motion to compel discovery, it shall order the 23 nonmoving party to pay the moving party's reasonable expenses 24 incurred in preparing the motion unless the Court finds that the 25 nonmoving party's failure to provide the requested discovery 26 without the Court's involvement was substantially justified. 27 R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). 28 justified' under Rule 37 if reasonable people could differ on the Fed. "A request for discovery is 'substantially 64 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 matter in dispute." 2 237 F.R.D. 428, 435 (D. Nev. 2006) (citing Reygo Pacific Corp. v. 3 Johnston Pump Co., 680 F.2d 647, 649 (9th Cir. 1982)). 4 United States EEOC v. Caesars Entm't, Inc., When a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part, 5 the Court may "apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion." 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). 7 for himself is not entitled to attorney's fees. 8 Hibernia Bank, 354 F. Supp. 310, 311 (D.C. Cal. 1973). 9 Generally, a pro per party who acts See Bone v. Here, Franklin does not specifically request sanctions; he 10 merely references that sanctions may be awarded in some situations. 11 Additionally, he does not ask for a sanction amount, a nonmonetary 12 sanction, or articulate what expenses he incurred in bringing the 13 Motion. 14 no attorney's fees. 15 sanctions, this request is denied. Moreover, Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, thus he incurred Accordingly, to the extent Franklin requests 16 17 18 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons described above, Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 20 1. interrogatories 10-15 is GRANTED. 21 22 2. 3. 27 Franklin's Motion to Compel further responses to Hopper interrogatories 3-7 is GRANTED. 25 26 Franklin's Motion to Compel further responses to Vargas interrogatories 3-9 and 16-17 is DENIED. 23 24 Franklin's Motion to Compel further responses to Vargas 4. Franklin's Motion to Compel further responses to Trujillo interrogatories 1-4 and 7-12 is GRANTED. 28 65 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 5. 2 3 Franklin's Motion to Compel further responses to Trujillo interrogatories 5 and 6 is DENIED. 6. Franklin's Motion to Compel further responses to Davis 4 interrogatories 5 and 14 is GRANTED; and as to 5 interrogatories 8-9 and 12-13, the Motion is GRANTED in 6 part. 7 7. 8 9 Franklin's Motion to Compel further responses to Davis interrogatories 1, 2, and 11 is DENIED. 8. Franklin's Motion to Compel further responses to Madden 10 interrogatories 5, 8, and 10 is GRANTED; and as to 11 interrogatories 13, 16, and 17, the Motion is GRANTED in 12 part. 13 9. 14 15 interrogatories 4 and 6 is DENIED. 10. 16 17 11. 22 23 24 Franklin's Motion to Compel further responses to Small interrogatories 4, 5, and 13 is DENIED. 12. 20 21 Franklin's Motion to Compel further responses to Small interrogatories 7 and 10 is GRANTED. 18 19 Franklin's Motion to Compel further responses to Madden Franklin's Motion to Compel responses to Requests for Admission is DENIED. 13. To the extent Franklin requests sanctions, that request is DENIED. Supplemental responses are to be provided by Defendants on or before November 9, 2012. 25 26 27 28 66 09cv1067 MMA(RBB) 1 The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Compel [ECF No. 102] because it has been superseded by 3 Plaintiff's Amended Motion [ECF No. 130]. 4 5 DATED: October 18, 2012 6 7 8 _____________________________ Ruben B. Brooks, Magistrate Judge United States District Court cc: Judge Anello All Parties of Record 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I:\Chambers Brooks\CASES\_1983\PRISONER\FRANKLIN1067\Order re Motion to Compel v2.wpd 67 09cv1067 MMA(RBB)

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.