Eusse, Jr. v. Vitela et al, No. 3:2013cv00916 - Document 72 (S.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER Denying 63 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 2/4/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Eusse, Jr. v. Vitela et al Doc. 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES EUSSE, JR., Plaintiff, 12 13 14 Case No.: 3:13-cv-00916-BEN-NLS v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO M. VITELA, et al., COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Defendants. TO INTERROGATORIES 15 (Dkt. No. 63) 16 17 18 Plaintiff James Eusse, Jr., a California prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis, commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 16, 20 2013. (Dkt. No. 1.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to 21 certain interrogatories. (Dkt. No. 63.) Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion. (Dkt. No. 22 66.) For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 23 I. Relevant Background a. Summary of Factual Allegations1 24 Plaintiff’s surviving claims allege that Defendants Vitela and Whitman retaliated 25 26 27 1 This summary is taken from the Court’s earlier discovery dispute order. (See Dkt. No. 61.) 1 3:13-cv-00916-BEN-NLS Dockets.Justia.com 1 against him for exercising his First Amendment rights while he was incarcerated at 2 Centinela State Prison. (Dkt. No. 41 at 9.) According to allegations in Plaintiff’s Second 3 Amended Complaint, on April 6, 2011, Defendant Vitela escorted Plaintiff to a holding 4 cage. After strip searching Plaintiff and removing Plaintiff from the cage, Defendant 5 Vitela allegedly planted an inmate manufactured weapon in the cage. (Dkt. No. 25 at 5, ¶ 6 20.) Plaintiff alleges that Vitela then made a false “114-D” lock-up order and a “115” 7 report, and perjured himself at Plaintiff’s trial. (Id. at 6, ¶ 22.) The alleged retaliation 8 caused Plaintiff to fear further retaliation and kept him from pursuing his claims. (Id. at 9 5, ¶ 18.) 10 The Second Amended Complaint also details an incident with Defendant Whitman, 11 in which Plaintiff disputed the time he would receive in the segregated housing unit for 12 the contraband weapon charge. (See id. at 6, ¶ 29.) Plaintiff believed the time spent 13 should have been only seven months, but his 128G form indicated it would be ten 14 months. (Id. at 6, ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant Whitman was part of the 15 Institutional Classification Committee (“ICC”). (Id. at 6, ¶ 29.) Defendant Whitman 16 allegedly told Plaintiff he “would do the full ten months and then some and that Plaintiff 17 should learn to keep his mouth shut.” (Id. at 7, ¶ 32.) When Plaintiff asked for the 128G 18 forms back, he alleges Defendant Whitman said “No, I’m going to keep them [because] 19 you just caught your 3 friends an extra 2 months 15 days and I’m going to tell them that 20 it’s [because] of you that they’re getting the extra time.” (Id. at 7, ¶ 33.) 21 22 b. Procedural Background To The Parties’ Discovery Dispute On September 3, 2015, Plaintiff served Defendants with Interrogatory Numbers 1 23 and 2. (Dkt. No. 63 at 2, citing Exh. A.) Interrogatory Number 1 seeks the following 24 information: “How many inmates at Calipatria State Prison were given a Rule Violation 25 Report (RVR) / CDCR 115 from Dec. 20, 2010—Dec. 20, 2012 for the specific act of 26 Possession of an Inmate Manufactured Weapon.” (Dkt. No. 63 at 9.) Interrogatory 27 Number 2 asks: “What was each of those Inmates - who you list for the response of 2 3:13-cv-00916-BEN-NLS 1 Plaintiffs ‘Interrogatory No. 1’ - S.H.U. assessment to include their Possible Mitigated 2 Asserted S.H.U.” (Id.) These requests essentially seek information about the number of 3 inmates that were given rules violation reports for possessing an inmate manufactured 4 weapon during a two year period, and the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) terms imposed 5 on those inmates. (See id.) 6 On October 6, 2015, Plaintiff received Defendants’ responses. Defendants 7 objected to Interrogatory Numbers 1 and 2 on the grounds that they are over broad, 8 unduly burdensome and seek irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to 9 the discovery of admissible evidence. (Dkt. No. 63 at 10-19 (Exhs. B & C); see also Dkt. 10 11 No. 66 at 4-5.) Plaintiff wrote a meet and confer letter to Defendants’ counsel on October 19, 12 2015, and had not heard back as of the date he constructively filed the present motion. 13 (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff constructively filed his motion on November 24, 2015, which was 14 received and filed nunc pro tunc to December 3, 2015. (See id.) He seeks to compel 15 further responses to Interrogatory Numbers 1 and 2 on grounds the information sought is 16 relevant and that Defendants’ objections lack the requisite specificity and thus are 17 waived. 18 Defendants filed their opposition on January 4, 2016. (Dkt. No. 66.) Defendants’ 19 opposition states the parties met and conferred via telephone on December 15, 2015, but 20 were unable to resolve the dispute. (Dkt. No. 66-1 at ¶ 2.) 21 II. 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) sets forth the scope of discovery as 23 24 25 26 27 Legal Standard follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged information that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 3 3:13-cv-00916-BEN-NLS 1 3 whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that his request 4 satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26. Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5 42339, 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009). Once the party seeking 6 discovery has established that his request meets this relevancy requirement, “the party 7 opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and 8 the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Id. 2 9 III. Discussion 10 The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants’ objections lack the 11 requisite specificity. Plaintiff relies on Caldwell v. Ctr. For Corr. Health, 228 F.R.D. 40 12 (D.D.C. 2005) to support his argument. In Caldwell, the district court explained that 13 objections asserting an interrogatory is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive must be 14 supported by affidavits or evidence that reveals the nature of the burden, and the failure to 15 do so waives the objection. See id at 44. The Caldwell court also stated, however, that 16 even if such an objection is waived, a plaintiff is not entitled to discovery that is not 17 relevant. Id. 18 Even assuming arguendo that Caldwell is applicable persuasive authority, 19 Defendants did not rely on their over breadth and burdensome objections in their 20 opposition. (Dkt. No. 66 at 4-7.) Instead, Defendants relied on their objections based on 21 relevance. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants’ objections lack 22 specificity is unsupported. The Court next turns to whether the discovery Plaintiff seeks is 23 relevant. 24 Plaintiff avers the discovery sought is relevant because he needs to support his claim 25 that Defendant Whitman’s assessment of a possible 10-month SHU term for Plaintiff was 26 an act of retaliation. (Dkt. No. 63 at 5.) He contends that other inmates charged with 27 possessing an inmate manufactured weapon were only assessed a term of 7 months and 15 4 3:13-cv-00916-BEN-NLS 1 days. (Id.) He also asserts he previously possessed three 128-G forms that showed other 2 inmates with the same charges were only given a possible 7 months and 15 days. 3 contends Defendant Whitman took the forms from him and refused to give them back. 4 (Dkt. No. 63 at 6, citing Second Amended Compl., Dkt. No. 25, ¶¶ 29-33.) He 5 Defendants contend the discovery sought has no bearing on whether Defendants 6 retaliated against Plaintiff in response to Plaintiff filing administrative appeals against 7 them. (Dkt. No. 66 at 45.) They contend the SHU terms imposed on other inmates will 8 not establish whether Defendant Vitela planted a weapon in Plaintiff’s cell for filing an 9 inmate appeal against him or that Defendant Whitman imposed an improper term on 10 Plaintiff for filing an inmate appeal. (Id. at 5.) 11 The Ninth Circuit has stated the five basic elements of a “viable claim” of First 12 Amendment retaliation in the prison context as follows: “(1) An assertion that a state actor 13 took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected 14 conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment 15 rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” 16 Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 17 F.3d 559, 566 (9th Cir. 2005)). 18 Here, Plaintiff does not argue the discovery sought is relevant to his claim that Vitela 19 planted a weapon. (See Dkt. No. 63, passim.) Rather, Plaintiff only takes the position that 20 the discovery is relevant to his claims against Defendant Whitman. (Dkt. No. 63 at 5 21 (discovery is “needed to demonstrate that Defendant Whitman’s assessment of a possible 22 10-month S.H.U. term for Plaintiff was an act of retaliation.”) The Court likewise does not 23 see how information about the duration of other inmates’ SHU terms would be relevant to 24 Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Vitela planted a weapon in his cell. Accordingly, the Court 25 denies Plaintiff’s motion to the extent Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from 26 Defendant Vitela as to Interrogatory Numbers 1 and 2. 27 The Court next turns to whether the discovery sought is relevant or may lead to 5 3:13-cv-00916-BEN-NLS 1 admissible evidence regarding Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Whitman retaliated against 2 him. 3 manufactured weapon were given the standard 7 and a half month SHU term, whereas 4 Plaintiff was given a ten month term, then it would tend to show Whitman retaliated against 5 him. (See Dkt. No. 63 at 5.) Defendants respond that information about other inmates’ 6 SHU terms are not relevant because mitigating and aggravating factors can be considered 7 in assessing an SHU term, and so each rules violation hearing for each inmate would be 8 distinct and irrelevant to one another. (Dkt. No. 66 at 5.) Plaintiff apparently asserts that if other inmates charged with possessing a 9 The Court agrees with Defendants that information about other inmates’ SHU terms 10 are not relevant to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendant Whitman. A SHU term 11 for an inmate is calculated based on the “expected” term under the regulations, but other 12 factors may exist to warrant imposing a lesser or greater period of confinement. (Dkt. No. 13 66 at 5, citing 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3341.5(c)(9)(D)(2); see also Dkt. No. 63 at 6).2 When 14 calculating a SHU term, the ICC addresses “aggravating and mitigating factors,” which are 15 taken into consideration when assessing a SHU term. Id. The discovery sought therefore 16 would not necessarily shed light on whether Defendant Whitman retaliated by imposing a 17 ten month sentence because the SHU terms assessed may vary based on each inmates’ 18 aggravating or mitigating factors. Accordingly, Defendants need not provide further 19 responses to these interrogatories because the interrogatories seek irrelevant information. 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 26 27 2 Both parties cite to 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3341.5(c)(9)(D)(2) in their briefs. (Dkt. No. 63 at 6; Dkt. No. 66 at 5.) These provisions and their subsections, however, now appear to be found under 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3341.9(a). 6 3:13-cv-00916-BEN-NLS 1 IV. 2 For the forgoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel further 3 4 5 Conclusion responses to interrogatories. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 4, 2016 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7 3:13-cv-00916-BEN-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.
