Garcia v. Cluck et al, No. 3:2012cv00718 - Document 35 (S.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 32 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 12/6/13. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Garcia v. Cluck et al Doc. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LENIN GARCIA, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 CLUCK, et al., 14 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 12-CV-718 AJB (NLS) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (Dkt. No. 32.) 15 16 Plaintiff Lenin Garcia, a prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this action on 17 March 22, 2012, seeking redress for civil rights violations. (Dkt. No. 1.) The operative 18 pleading in this action is the second amended complaint, which alleges Defendants 19 retaliated against Plaintiff by making threats, fabricating forms and write-ups, and 20 adversely changing his housing. (Dkt. No. 25.) 21 Currently pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel further 22 responses to four of his Requests for Production. (Dkt. No. 32.) Defendants oppose. 23 (Dkt. No. 34.) The responses in question were served on July 26, 2013. (Dkt. No. 34-1 ¶ 24 4.) According to Chambers Rules, motions regarding written discovery are to be filed 25 jointly, and are due within forty-five days of the service of the initial response. Under the 26 Rules, a joint motion regarding these responses was due on September 9, 2013. 27 Therefore, the pending motion was untimely filed. The motion was also not filed jointly, 28 as required. The Court chooses to exercise its discretion and address the merits of the 1 12-CV-718 AJB (NLS) Dockets.Justia.com 1 motion, however, the parties are warned that any future untimely or improper filings may 2 be summarily rejected. 3 I. DISCOVERY PRINCIPLES The purpose of discovery is to “remove surprise from trial preparation so the 4 5 parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute.” U.S. ex rel. 6 O’Connell v. Chapman University, 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and 7 citation omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) offers guidance as to the 8 scope of discovery permitted in an action: Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense...Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 “Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly.” Garneau v. City of Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 07cv200 JM (PCL), 2009 WL 1390794 at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (internal citation omitted). 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 District courts have broad discretion when determining relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). However, this discretion should be balanced with the obligation to interpret the Rules in order to secure a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Additionally, this Court has the power to restrict discovery when it is necessary to prevent “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The Court should also impose limits when “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff’s motion to compel concerns four of his Requests for Production, which 2 12-CV-718 AJB (NLS) 1 are outlined below. He argues that the information sought is relevant, relates directly to 2 the credibility of Defendants, and may be evidence of a “habit, character, and custom to 3 engage in misconduct.” (Dkt. No. 32 at 2.1) Plaintiff also asserts that the documents 4 requested should not be protected by privilege or deemed confidential. Id. at 3-4. 5 A. 6 Produce any and all documents, grievances/602s submitted by other inmates where allegations of retaliation, cover up, [fabrication] of RVR-115, 114-D, transferring inmates to ASU as retaliatory punishment, or retaliatory bed moves were made against any of the Defendants during their employment in CDCR. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Request for Production No. 3 Defendants asserted objections to this demand, arguing that the request is irrelevant, compound, vague and ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, and that it violates the privacy rights of individuals who are not a party to this action. (Dkt. No. 34 at 2-3.) Defendants also objected to the demand as “impermissibly seek[ing] confidential peace officer information” under California law, and on the basis of “official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.” Id. at 3. In response to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s desire to use this information to demonstrate “custom to engage in misconduct” is impermissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(a). Id. According to Defendants, the documents listed in the privilege log concern events that occurred after the events alleged in the complaint, and therefore they are not relevant to factors such as motive, opportunity, or intent, or other factors listed in Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Id. As an initial matter, Defendants’ objections related to Fed. R. Evid. 404 are misguided. Rule 404 concerns the admissibility of certain types of evidence, and Rule 26 permits discovery of relevant information that “need not be admissible at trial.” The Court also does not agree with Defendants’ assertion that the documents listed on the privilege log are irrelevant because they relate to incidents that occurred after the events alleged in the complaint. Other complaints about conduct similar to that alleged in the complaint may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence that could bear on Plaintiff’s 27 28 1 References to page numbers in the parties’ submissions refer to those assigned by the ECF system. 3 12-CV-718 AJB (NLS) 1 claims, regardless of when the complaints were made. The privilege log indicates that the 2 other inmate appeals were all initiated within approximately one year of the events 3 alleged in the complaint, so they are not far removed from the time period in question. 4 The demand is reasonably tailored to parallel Plaintiff’s specific allegations, and is 5 therefore not overbroad. 6 With respect to the objections based on privilege for documents responsive to this 7 demand, Defendants only state that they are “well-founded,” and make no argument or 8 explanation as to why the objections are well-founded. (Dkt. No. 34 at 3.) This Court 9 declines to speculate on Defendants’ behalf. As noted above, the party opposing 10 discovery bears the burden of showing why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. 11 Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). Defendants have not proffered 12 anything towards meeting that burden. This Court finds the remainder of Defendants’ 13 boilerplate objections unavailing. 14 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request for 15 Production No. 3 is GRANTED. The Court is mindful of the potential privacy concerns 16 of those who filed the appeals in question, and therefore orders that the names and 17 identifying information of the inmates be redacted. See Lamon v. Adams, No. 1:09-cv- 18 205-LJO-SKO PC, 2010 WL 4513405 at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010) (ordering 19 redaction of inmate names on grievances before production). 20 B. 21 Produce any and all lawsuits, petitions, [and] writs where any of the Defendants were named as a party during their employment at CDCR. 22 23 24 25 26 27 Request for Production No. 4 In their objections, Defendants state that this request is irrelevant, compound, vague and ambiguous, asks for documents equally available to Plaintiff, and is overly broad. (Dkt. No. 34 at 4.) This Court agrees that this request is overbroad, and that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the relevance of all the documents that may fall within this request. Accordingly, Defendants’ objections on these grounds are sustained and Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response is DENIED. 28 4 12-CV-718 AJB (NLS) 1 C. Request for Production No. 5 2 3 Produce any and all documents regarding any of the Defendants [who have] been counseled, reprimanded, [and/or] disciplined by their [supervisor’s] designee for misconduct during their [time] in CDCR. 4 In their objections, Defendants state that the request is irrelevant, compound, vague 5 and ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome, and oppressive. (Dkt. No. 34 at 5.) They 6 also object on the basis of various privileges. Id. In their response to the motion, they 7 argue that Plaintiff has not shown that these documents are relevant to his claims. Id. 8 They point out that Plaintiff narrowed his request in another demand (discussed below) to 9 documents related to factually similar incidents, and there were no responsive documents 10 to that request. Id. This Court agrees that this demand is overbroad, and that Plaintiff has not shown 11 12 that all documents contained within this request are relevant to this action. Accordingly, 13 Defendants’ objections on these grounds are sustained and Plaintiff’s motion to compel 14 further response is DENIED. 15 D. 16 Produce any and all information from Defendants[’] personal files regarding disciplinary reports, formal or informal complaints and any information regarding prior factually similar incidents including retaliation, retaliatory transfers to “ASU,” retaliatory cell move transfers, cover up, conspiracy, fabrication of 115-RVR, fabrication of 114-D, moral turpitude conduct, [and] past transgressions. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Request for Production No. 6 In their objections, Defendants state that the request is irrelevant, compound, vague and ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome, and oppressive. (Dkt. No. 34 at 6.) They also object on the basis of various privileges. Id. Notwithstanding those objections, there were no documents responsive to this request. Id. Plaintiff has not offered evidence to the contrary, therefore this Court finds Defendants’ response sufficient. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response is DENIED. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request for Production No. 3 is GRANTED. Defendants shall produce redacted copies of the 5 12-CV-718 AJB (NLS) responsive documents within thirty days of the date of this Order. 1 2 3 4 2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request for Production Nos. 4, 5, and 6 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 DATED: December 6, 2013 7 8 9 Hon. Nita L. Stormes U.S. Magistrate Judge United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 12-CV-718 AJB (NLS)
]]>
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.
