Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN D. BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. ROMERO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-02074 DAD DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL

[ECF No. 78]

ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT 

WADDLE TO PROVIDE FURTHER 

RESPONSES WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Kevin D. Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 26, 2012. On 

November 1, 2013, the Court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an 

amended complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On December 2, 2013, 

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff named as Defendants: Correctional Lieutenant 

Constance Waddle and Correctional Officer E. Castellanos. Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated 

his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him. On March 25, 2015, Defendants Castellanos 

and Waddle filed an answer.

On September 8, 2015, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order wherein the 

deadline for providing initial disclosures was set for October 19, 2015, the deadline to amend 

pleadings was set for January 4, 2016, the deadline for conducting discovery was set for February 1, 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2016, and the deadline for filing dispositive motions was set for April 1, 2016.

On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Waddle to answer 

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (“ROG”), Set No. 1, Request for Admissions (“RFA”), Request for 

Production of Documents (“RPD”), and Interrogatories, Set No. 2.

DISCUSSION

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant 

to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). 

Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. (quotation marks omitted).

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel bears 

the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, 2012 

WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012). This requires the moving party to inform the Court which 

discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the 

information sought is relevant and why the responding party’s objections are not meritorious. 

Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1. 

However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding 

these procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigator. Therefore, to the extent 

possible, the Court endeavors to resolve the motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of 

Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 

625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 

I. Interrogatories, Set No. 1

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to his interrogatories as follows.

ROG 2: “State in detail the exact number of staff misconduct complaints that were filed 

against you by any inmates between January 1, 2008 and the present date of your response.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “staff misconduct complaints,” “against 

you,” and “response,” are vague and ambiguous. Additionally, to the extent that 

Plaintiff is seeking administrative appeals filed against the Defendant, the 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Interrogatory is harassing and unduly burdensome. Administrative appeals are not 

maintained according to the staff complained of in the appeal and there are no staff 

files for administrative grievances. Rather, administrative appeals are logged and 

maintained according to the inmate who submitted them. A copy of the appeals is 

kept in the prison’s Appeals Office, and another copy is placed in the inmate’s central 

file. Thus, to comply with this request, Defendant would be required to review each 

inmate’s prison central file to determine if there are responsive documents. To the 

extent that the request seeks documents contained in Defendant’s personnel file, it 

violates the official information privilege. Finally, the request seeks irrelevant 

information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, 

it is overbroad as to scope and time, and it calls for speculation.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

is unaware of the exact number of inmate appeals filed against her, and would be 

speculating as to a response. Defendant has denied any and all allegations of 

misconduct, including the allegations of misconduct alleged by Plaintiff that are the 

basis of this complaint.

Plaintiff’s Response:

None of the terms used in this interrogatory are vague or ambiguous to this 

Defendant as she has admitted in her responses to my requests for admissions No. 23-

25 that she has conducted staff misconduct investigations into staff misconduct 

complaints filed by inmates at KVSP, that she has substantial training and experience 

in conducting these investigations and has trained other custody staff in the policies 

and procedures thereto. Prior staff misconduct complaints filed against Waddle is 

relevant to the subject matter and to credibility and other issues and are clearly 

discoverable in § 1983 actions.

The CDCR operations manual (DOM) and the KVSP Operational Procedure 

(OP) regarding the “Staff Misconduct Complaint and Investigation Procedures, which 

are based on California State Law, Penal Code §832.5 clearly set forth the extensive 

and elaborate record keeping and retention procedures for “all” staff misconduct 

complaints filed by inmates or civilians, whether made on 602 appeals, confidential 

“notes” or “kites,” or even made verbally by any inmates to any custody official or 

person considered a peace officer. Penal Code §832.5(b) requires the Department of 

Corrections to retain “citizen complaints,” (which includes staff misconduct 

complaints) and related reports or findings for “at least five years.” Each warden and 

Regional Parole Administrator (RPA) shall maintain a filing system containing copies 

of each citizens complaint filed by citizens other than inmates/parolees and the 

written responses thereto as well as inmate/parolees appeals that allege peace officer 

misconduct. See DOM §54100.25 through 54100.27, and the KVSP OP section 

regarding staff misconduct complaints and investigation procedures, from section IV, 

“approval” and “review” through section VIII, “allegations of excessive and/or 

unnecessary force,” and also see title 15 of the CCR §3382 for the law on the 

existence of these records and reports.

Waddles response hereto is evasive and without merit and this interrogatory 

aims to discover the number of “staff misconduct complaints that have been filed 

against her since she began working at KVSP which is proper under FRCP 26(b)(1). 

Waddles evasive and meritless response must be supplemented immediately and 

substantively. Plaintiff incorporates his Preliminary Statement and General Argument 

by reference as through fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental 

response is necessary.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Bryant’s arguments regarding Interrogatory No. 2 are unavailing. In addition

to being overly broad in time and scope, Bryant’s interrogatory about the “exact” 

number of staff complaints filed against Defendant Waddle is unduly burdensome 

and nearly impossible for Defendant Waddle to answer. Although Bryant argues that 

there is a record keeping system to keep appeals for five years, as explained in 

Defendant Waddle’s discovery response, administrative appeals and staff complaints 

are maintained by the inmate who filed the grievance and not by the staff member. 

This is further supported by the declaration of Litigation Coordinator Brian Hancock. 

(See Decl. Hancock, Doc. # 77-1.) Further, Defendant Waddle explained in her 

discovery response that she is not informed about every complaint filed against her. 

Therefore, Defendant Waddle cannot respond to this request without looking at the 

central file of every inmate who was at Kern Valley State Prison from 2008 to 

present.

The undue burden of this request far outweighs the probative value of this 

request, as Bryant seeks inadmissible character evidence. Character evidence is 

normally not admissible in a civil rights case. Gates v. Rivera, 993 F.2d 697, 700 (9th 

Cir. 1993); Cohn v. Papke, 655 F.2d 191, 193 (9th Cir. 1981). Rule 404 generally 

prohibits the admission of evidence of a person's character for the purpose of proving 

that the individual acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion. 

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). (“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to 

prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.”); 

Heath v. Cast, 813 F.2d 254, 259 (9th Cir. 1987.) Evidence regarding prison’s staff’s 

past conduct with respect to other inmates is inadmissible, and Bryant will not be able 

to argue that Defendant Waddle acted in conformity therewith. Bryant thus cannot 

demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from the denial in this case. Thus, there 

is no basis to grant Bryant’s Motion to Compel a further response.

Ruling: Granted in part. Defendant’s objection that the terms “staff misconduct complaint,” 

“against you,” and “response” are vague and ambiguous is overruled. In addition, Defendant’s argument 

that the interrogatory would be nearly impossible to answer because of the way files are kept at Kern 

Valley State Prison is overruled. Plaintiff is correct that Defendant may not avoid discovery by keeping 

records in a certain manner, and then claim that searching those records would be an undue burden 

because of the manner of storage chosen. The Court is aware of many prisoner cases in which such 

information has been provided.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s request concerning all staff misconduct complaints goes beyond the 

scope of discovery. In addition, his request for complaints from the period of January 1, 2008, goes back 

over eight years. The relevant date in this case is June 8, 2010, which is the date of the alleged assault by 

Officers Gallagher and Romero. It was this incident that Plaintiff claims provided the motivation for 

Waddle to begin her alleged pattern of retaliation against him. Plaintiff is entitled to evidence which 

would disclose a pattern of retaliation. Therefore, Defendant Waddle’s objection to this request as 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 4 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

inadmissible character evidence is overruled, and Defendant Waddle is ordered to provide a further 

response to the interrogatory stating the number of staff misconduct complaints filed against her from 

June 8, 2010, to the present, wherein inmates complained of retaliation by Waddle.

ROG 3: “State in detail the exact number of staff misconduct complaints filed against you by 

any inmates between January 1, 2008 and the date of your response for which you were investigated by 

the Institution Services Unit (ISU) and CDCR’s Office of Internal Affairs (OIA).”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “staff misconduct complaint,” “response,” 

“Institutional Services Unit,” and “Office of Internal Affairs” are vague and ambiguous. 

This request is vague as to the term “staff misconduct complaints.” Assuming that the 

term refers to a staff complaint defined by title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, 

section 3084.9, subdivision (1)(i), Defendant also objects to this request as overly broad 

and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Whether other inmates 

have filed a staff complaint alleging that Defendant engaged in misconduct is not relevant 

evidence that Defendant may have engaged in retaliatory conduct. This request is 

unintelligible. This request calls for speculation as investigations by ISU and OIA are 

confidential and not necessarily disclosed to officers who may be subject of an 

investigation. This request is compound and vague and ambiguous as what response

Plaintiff is referring to. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope, and is 

therefore unduly burdensome as this would require examination of every inmate file over 

an unspecified period of time because inmate appeals are not categorized by staff 

member nor placed in a staff member’s personnel files. This request assumes facts that 

are not in evidence. Finally, this violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the 

official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is 

unaware of the exact number of staff complaints filed against her, and would be 

speculating as to a response. Defendant has denied any and all allegations of misconduct, 

including the allegation of misconduct alleged by Plaintiff that are the basis of this 

complaint.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome or 

compound, as it asks only one question and covers a specific time period, and Defendant 

is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and procedures. 

Plaintiff incorporates by reference his contentions re interrogatory No. 2 and his

‘Preliminary Statement’ and General Argument above as though fully set forth right here. 

See p. 22-25. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response: 

As Defendant Waddle explained above in response to Interrogatory No. 2, staff 

complaints are not kept by staff member but rather than inmate. Therefore, Bryant’s 

request, which is overly broad in time and scope, would be unduly burdensome for 

Defendant Waddle to answer. Further, as explained by Defendant Castellanos in response 

to the same interrogatory (Castellanos Opp. to MTC at 6), staff members do not have 

access to ISU or OIA records. Therefore Defendant Waddle cannot personally verify

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 5 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

whether or not any inmate complaints have been investigated or provide any pertinent 

information unless she was informed of any such investigation. Finally, Defendant 

Waddle incorporates by reference her response from Interrogatory No. 2 indicating that 

Bryant is seeking inadmissible character evidence, as he is seeking information that has 

nothing to do with his claim but instead appears to simply be a way of showing alleged 

prior bad acts.

Ruling: Granted in part for the same reasons stated in ROG 2 above. Defendant states such 

records are confidential and not necessarily disclosed to the officers who are subject of an investigation. 

To the extent she possesses or has access to such records, Defendant Waddle is ordered to provide a 

further response to the interrogatory stating the number of staff misconduct complaints filed against her 

from June 8, 2010, to the present, for which she was investigated by the Institution Services Unit (ISU) 

and Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), wherein inmates had complained of retaliation by Waddle.

ROG 4: “Identify all inmates by full name and CDCR number who have filed 602 appeals and 

staff misconduct complaints against you between January 1, 2008 and the date of your response alleging 

you had them assaulted by staff or other inmates or [were] in any way involved in their being assaulted.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “staff misconduct complaints,” “against you,” 

and “response,” are vague and ambiguous. Assuming that the term refers to a staff 

complaint defined by title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, section 3084.9, 

subdivision (1)(i), Defendant also objects to this request as overly broad and not 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Whether other inmates have 

filed a staff complaint alleging that Defendant engaged in misconduct is not relevant 

evidence that Defendant may have engaged in retaliatory conduct. This request is

unintelligible. This request calls for speculation as investigations by ISU and OIA are 

confidential and not necessarily disclosed to officers who may be subject of an 

investigation. This request is compound. This request is overly broad as to time period 

and scope, and is therefore unduly burdensome as this would require examination of 

every inmate file over an unspecified period of time because inmate appeals are not 

categorized by staff member nor placed in a staff member’s personnel files. This request 

assumes facts that are not in evidence. This request potentially violates the privacy rights 

of third parties. Finally, this violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the official

information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

believes that Plaintiff Bryant (D56620) and Inmate Cleave McCloud (J55573) may have 

filed appeals, however she is still researching this issue. Defendant is unaware of any 

other inmate appeals or staff complaints alleging that she had inmates assaulted.

Plaintiff’s Argument: 

This interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome or 

compound, as it asks only one question and covers a specific time period, and Defendant 

is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and procedures. 

See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff 

incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Interrogatory No. 2” and his “Preliminary 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 6 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Statement and General Argument” above at p. 28-29 & 22-25 as though fully set forth 

right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As Defendant Waddle explained above in response to Interrogatory No. 2, staff 

complaints are not kept by staff member but rather by inmate. Therefore, Bryant’s 

request, which is overly broad in time and scope, would be unduly burdensome for 

Defendant Waddle to answer. Defendant Waddle has provided Bryant with the names of 

inmates she believes filed appeals against her for this topic (although Defendant Waddles 

does not believe that Bryant exhausted his administrative remedies against her and is 

seeking to file a Motion for Summary Judgment on those grounds). Bryant’s 

disagreement regarding the extent of Defendant Waddle’s knowledge or memory is not a 

basis to object to her response.

Finally, Defendant Waddle incorporates by reference her response from

Interrogatory No. 2 indicating that Bryant is seeking inadmissible character evidence, as 

he is seeking information that has nothing to do with his claim but instead appears to 

simply be a way of showing alleged prior bad acts.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant Waddle states she has provided Plaintiff with the names of inmates 

she believed filed appeals against her for this topic.

ROG 5: “Identify all ISU and OIA staff by name and employee I.D. number who have 

questioned or interviewed you in an investigation in regard to allegations of staff misconduct made 

against you between January 1, 2008 and the date of your response by any inmates.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “staff misconduct,” “investigation,” and 

“responses.” This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. The request for “the date of your response by any 

inmates” is unintelligible. This request calls for speculation. This request is compound. 

This request is overly broad as to time period and scope. This request assumes facts that 

are not in evidence. Finally, this violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the 

official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

does not recall this information and is not currently in possession of information that 

could refresh her memory.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome or 

compound, as it asks only one question and covers a specific time period, and Defendant 

is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and procedures. 

See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff 

incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Interrogatory No. 2” and his “Preliminary 

Statement and General Argument” above at p. 28-29 & 22-25 as though fully set forth 

right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 7 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As Defendant Waddle explained in her discovery response, she does not know 

this information and she does not have documents to refresh her memory. While 

Defendant Waddle has sought documents pertaining to Bryant’s case, as they are not 

currently in her possession, she has not yet received any such documents from OIA or 

ISU that pertain to Bryant that could refresh her memory.

Further, any purported investigation that does not have to do with Bryant is

irrelevant to this case and is impermissible character evidence. The confidentiality of 

such documents protected by the official information privilege and peace officer privilege 

would heavily outweigh any probative value.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has provided a sufficient response stating she does not know this 

information or have any documents to refresh her memory.

ROG 6: “Describe in detail each and every act while at work at KVSP for which you were 

investigated, and received disciplinary action against you by CDCR between January 1, 2008 and the 

date of your response.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “investigated” and “disciplinary action,” are 

vague and ambiguous. This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is unintelligible. This request calls for 

speculation. This request is compound, and is vague and ambiguous as to what response 

Plaintiff is referring to. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope. This

request assumes facts that are not in evidence. This request potentially violates the 

privacy rights of third parties. Finally, this violates defendant’s privacy rights and 

violates the official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

objects to the production of such information as privileged official information.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome or 

compound, as it asks only one question and covers a specific time period, Defendants 

responsive is evasive, non-responsive and is made in bad faith in her attempt to cover-up 

that she has been investigated, found guilty and disciplined for attempting to cover-up 

illegal conduct committed by her staff and was going to allow an inmate get convicted of 

a crime she knew he did not commit and possibly receive a life sentence under the three 

strikes law. See Exhibit “S” at p. 336. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions 

re interrogatory No. 2,” and his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at 

P. 28-29 & 22025 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental 

response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Defendant Waddle properly objected to this request on the grounds that it was 

overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. 

Whether the hiring authority investigated and subsequently disciplined Defendant 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 8 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

Waddle for allegedly failing to competently fulfill her duties as a correctional officer for 

conduct unrelated to the allegations in Bryant’s Amended Complaint is not relevant to 

evidence that Defendant Waddle may have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Bryant.

Moreover, providing inmates with information regarding confidential disciplinary 

history would threaten both governmental and privacy interests by: 1) having a negative 

impact on departmental disciplinary procedures; 2) having a chilling effect on 

departmental officers and employees to provide personal information about themselves 

and their families; 3) having a chilling effect on employees’ willingness to share 

potentially important information regarding job performance, health and safety concerns, 

and security concerns; 4) having a negative impact on internal investigations and 

assessments of officers and employees; 5) having a negative impact of taking of 

corrective actions, and 6) being an invasion of the employees’ privacy and of their 

families’ privacy and possibly others. This is supported by the declaration of Litigation 

Coordinator Brian Hancock. (See Decl. Hancock, Doc. # 77-1.)

Further, Bryant is a convicted felon litigating this matter in pro per. Even with a 

protective order, there is nothing to stop him from disseminating this information to other 

inmates and to persons outside the prison. This is improperly harassing and violates the 

privacy rights of defendants.

Finally, Defendant Waddle incorporates by reference her response from

Interrogatory No. 2 indicating that Bryant is seeking inadmissible character evidence.

Ruling: Granted in part for the same reasons stated in ROG 2 above. Defendant is ordered to 

describe each act of retaliation against an inmate while at work at KVSP for which she were investigated, 

and received disciplinary action against her by CDCR between June 8, 2010, to the present. 

ROG 7: “Describe in detail the disciplinary actions against you that you received for each and 

every act you describe in your response to Interrogatory No. 6 above.”

Defendant’s Response: 

Objection. The terms and phrase “disciplinary action,” is vague and ambiguous. 

This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope. This 

request assumes facts that are not in evidence. Finally, this violates defendant’s privacy 

rights and violates the official information privilege established by the analogous federal 

case law.

Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: No discipline 

has been sustained against Defendant by CDCR.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory and the term disciplinary action is not at all vague or 

ambiguous to Waddle, and in her response she has knowingly lied under oath. And this 

Court should impose sanctions under its inherent power to control its docket for this bad 

faith by Defendant Waddle and also her counsel if they know it was false and instructed 

her to lie under oath because they did not know I had documentary proof she was 

disciplined or that I would ever be able to obtain any with their deliberate obstruction of

discovery relevant to this case’s subject matter. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his 

“Contentions re Interrogatory No. 2 & 6,” and his “Preliminary Statement and General 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 9 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

Argument” above at p. 28, 34 & 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive 

supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Notwithstanding the objections to this interrogatory, Defendant Waddle answered 

Bryant’s question and verified her response. Although Bryant claims that Defendant 

Waddle is not responding in good faith and that he has “documentary proof” that she is 

lying, he fails to provide any specific explanation or evidentiary support to his allegation 

that Defendant Waddle is not being truthful.

Further, simply because Plaintiff believes Defendant Waddle is not being honest 

is not grounds for a motion to compel.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the interrogatory.

ROG 8: “State all the dates on which you were interviewed and questioned in any investigations 

regarding all the allegations Plaintiff made against you in all the 602 appeals, staff misconduct 

complaints, and ISU or OIA recorded interviews he filed and made against you, including the name(s) 

and employee I.D. numbers of each interviewer or investigator.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “questioned,” investigations,” “interviewer,” 

and “investigator” are vague and ambiguous. This request seeks irrelevant information 

not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request calls for 

speculation. This request is compound. This request is overly broad as to time period and 

scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. Finally, this violates

defendant’s privacy rights and violates the official information privilege established by 

the analogous federal case law.

Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant does 

not recall this information and is not currently in possession of any documents that could 

refresh her recollection regarding this information.

Plaintiff’s Argument: 

This interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, compound or overly broad, and 

Defendant Waddle is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation 

policies and procedures. See Exhibit X at p. 362- 364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions 

No. 23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Interrogatory No. 2,” 

and his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 28 & 22-25 as though 

fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As Defendant Waddle explained in her discovery response, she does not know 

this information and she does not have documents to refresh her memory. While 

Defendant Waddle has sought documents pertaining to Bryant’s case, as they are not 

currently in her possession, she has not yet received any such documents from OIA or 

ISU that pertain to Bryant that could refresh her memory.

Further, Defendant Waddle does not believe that Bryant ever filed a 602

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 10 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

regarding his claims against her and/or exhausted his administrative remedies and

therefore there would be no interview. Defendant Waddle intends to file a Motion for 

Summary Judgment on the exhaustion issue.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has sufficiently answered the interrogatory.

ROG 9: “Describe in detail all the questions that were asked and the answers you gave in 

response thereto in each and every interview you describe in response to Interrogatory No. 8 above 

including the name(s) of the interviewer(s) / investigators who asked each questions and their employee

I.D. number.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “questions,” “answers” “interview,”

“interviewer,” and “investigator” are vague and ambiguous. This request seeks irrelevant 

information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request 

calls for speculation. This request is compound. This request is overly broad as to time 

period and scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. Finally, this 

violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the official information privilege

established by the analogous federal case law.

Defendant does not recall this information and is not currently in possession of 

any documents capable of refreshing her recollection of this information.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not in any vague or ambiguous to this Defendant and is 

highly relevant to the subject matter of this case. Defendant is a training officer for 

CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and procedure and knows all these 

terms. See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s response to Admissions No. 23-25. 

Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “contentions re Interrogatory No. 2,” and his 

“Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 28 & 22-25 as though fully 

set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As Defendant Waddle explained in her discovery response, she does not know 

this information and she does not have documents to refresh her memory. While 

Defendant Waddle has sought documents pertaining to Bryant’s case, as they are not 

currently in her possession, she has not yet received any such documents from OIA or 

ISU that pertain to Bryant that could refresh her memory.

Further, Defendant Waddle does not believe that Bryant ever filed a 602

regarding his claims against her and/or exhausted his administrative remedies and

therefore there would be no interview. Defendant Waddle intends to file a Motion for 

Summary Judgment on the exhaustion issue.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has sufficiently answered the interrogatory.

ROG 10: “Describe in detail the location of all the records and recorded interviews regarding all 

the investigations that were conducted by ISU and OIA staff regarding all the allegations Plaintiff made 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 11 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

against you in his 602 appeals, staff misconduct complaints and interviews recorded by ISU and OIA. 

Please state the full name, title, and employee I.D. number of the custodian(s) of all those records.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “location,” “records” “recorded interviews,” 

and “staff misconduct,” are vague and ambiguous. This request seeks irrelevant 

information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request 

calls for speculation. This request is compound. This request is overly broad as to time 

period and scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. Finally, this 

violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the official information privilege

established by the analogous federal case law.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is 

not currently in possession of this information. Defendant is not in possession, control, or 

custody of any of the requested documents/information and would be guessing as to their 

whereabouts.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not in any way vague or ambiguous to this Defendant as to 

those terms, and it is highly relevant to the subject matter of this case. Defendant Waddle 

is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and procedure 

and knows all these terms. See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s responses to 

Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re 

Interrogatory No. 2,” and his “Preliminary Statement and general Argument” above at p. 

28 & 22- 25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is 

necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

First, Defendant has reason to believe that Bryant did not file a 602 Appeal

against Defendant Waddle regarding this incident, and she intends to move for summary 

judgment on the grounds that Bryant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

Therefore, there would be no such investigations based on a 602 Appeal.

Further, as explained above, Defendant Waddle does not have access to ISU or 

OIA records. Therefore, she cannot personally verify whether or not any Bryant’s 

complaints have been investigated or where such recordings are located. This would call 

for speculation.

Further, Bryant has already subpoenaed these records from CDCR and has filed a 

separate motion regarding this subpoena.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has sufficiently answered the interrogatory stating she does not have 

such records or access to them.

ROG 11: “Describe in detail the location of all the records and recorded interviews regarding all 

the investigations that were conducted by ISU, OIA, or any CDCR official regarding all 602 appeals and 

staff misconduct complaints filed by all KVSP inmates in which they made allegations that you were in 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 12 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

any way involved in or responsible for, their being assaulted by staff or other inmates between January 1, 

2008 and the date of your response. Please state the full name, title and employee I.D. number of the 

custodian of all those records.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “location,” “records” “recorded interviews,” 

and “staff misconduct,” are vague and ambiguous. This request seeks irrelevant 

information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request 

calls for speculation. This request is compound. This request is overly broad as to time 

period and scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. Finally, this 

violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the official information privilege

established by the analogous federal case law.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is 

not currently in possession of this information. Defendant is not in possession, control, or 

custody of any of the requested documents/information and would be guessing as to their 

whereabouts.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, compound or overly broad as to time 

period or scope, and it is highly relevant to the subject matter of this case. Defendant 

Waddle is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and 

procedure and knows all these terms. See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s responses to 

Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re 

Interrogatory No. 2,” and his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at P. 

28 & 22- 25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is 

necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As explained above, Defendant Waddle does not have access to ISU or OIA

records. Therefore, she cannot personally verify whether or not any inmate’s complaints 

have been investigated or where such recordings are located. This would call for 

speculation. (See Decl. Hancock, Doc. # 77-1.) Further, Bryant has already subpoenaed 

these records from CDCR and has filed a separate motion regarding this subpoena.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has sufficiently answered the interrogatory stating she does not have 

such records or access to them.

ROG 12: “Identify by full name and employee number all of the KVSP sergeants and 

correctional officers whom you supervise who have been investigated by ISU, OIA or any prison official 

for allegations of staff misconduct between January 1, 2008 and the date of your response.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “employee number,” “supervise”

“investigated,” and “staff misconduct,” are vague and ambiguous. This request seeks 

irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 13 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

request calls for speculation. This request is compound and vague and ambiguous as what 

response Plaintiff is referring to. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope. 

This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. This request violates the privacy

rights of third parties. Finally, this violates the official information privilege established 

by the analogous federal case law.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is 

not aware of such information as ISU and OIA investigations are confidential.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, compound or overly broad as to time 

period or scope, and it is highly relevant to the subject matter of this case. Defendant 

Waddle is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and 

procedure and knows all these terms. See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s responses to 

Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re 

Interrogatory No. 2,” and his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 

28 & 22- 25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is 

necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Bryant’s discovery request is impermissibly overbroad in time and scope, as it 

seeks information that has potentially nothing to do with this case. Although Bryant 

claims that this information about whether other officers were investigated for alleged 

misconduct is relevant, he provides no explanation of relevancy to this case and 

specifically his retaliation claim against Defendant Waddle. For example, an officer who 

at one point in time was supervised by Defendant Waddle in the past eight years could 

have been investigated for something that occurred when Defendant Waddle was not 

supervising him/her or for something that had nothing to do with Defendant Waddle.

Further, the request seeks confidential information which Defendant Waddle does 

not have access to as she does not have access to OIA and ISU investigations, particularly 

for other staff members. Simply because Defendant Waddle may supervise employees 

does not mean that she has knowledge of all investigations and/or discipline against them, 

and this violates third party rights as well as the peace officer privilege. Particularly 

because Bryant cannot show that this information is relevant to his claims, the Court 

should protect the privacy interests of third parties and deny Bryant’s motion to compel 

this response.

Ruling: Denied. The interrogatory seeks information which is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claim of 

retaliation by Waddle.

ROG 13: “Identify by full name and employee I.D. number all KVSP sergeants and correctional 

officers whom you supervised who have received disciplinary action against them as a result of staff 

misconduct between January 1, 2008 and the date of your response.”

Defendant’s Response: 

Objection. The terms and phrases “employee I.D. number,” “supervise” 

“disciplined,” and “staff misconduct,” are vague and ambiguous. This request seeks 

irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Whether other inmates have filed a staff complaint alleging that Defendant engaged in 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 14 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

misconduct is not relevant evidence that Defendant may have engaged in retaliatory 

conduct. This request calls for speculation as investigations by ISU and OIA are

confidential and not necessarily disclosed to officers who may be subject of an 

investigation or to their supervisors. This request is compound and vague and ambiguous 

as what response Plaintiff is referring to. This request is overly broad as to time period 

and scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. This request violates the 

privacy rights of third parties. Finally, this violates the official information privilege 

established by the analogous federal case law.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is 

not aware of such information as ISU and OIA investigations are confidential, as well as 

any potential discipline.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory and the terms and phrases therein are not at all vague or 

ambiguous to Waddle, and, in her response she has knowingly and deliberately lied under 

oath. And this Court should impose sanctions under its inherent power to control its 

docket for this bad faith by Defendant Waddle and also her counsel if they know it was 

false and instructed her to lie under oath, because they did not know I had documentary 

proof she and her sergeant, Sgt. Sica were investigated, found guilty and disciplined for

their attempt to cover-up deliberate illegal conduct by themselves and the staff they 

supervised, nor did they ever think I would be able to obtain any with their deliberate 

obstruction of discovery. This is all relevant to the subject matter of this case. Plaintiff 

incorporates by reference his “Contention re Interrogatory No. 2, and 6-7,” and his 

“Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 28, 34-36 & 22-25 as though 

fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As noted above, Bryant’s discovery request is impermissibly overbroad in time 

and scope, as it seeks information that has potentially nothing to do with this case. 

Although Bryant claims that this information about whether other officers were 

disciplined is relevant, he provides no explanation how relevancy to this case and 

specifically his retaliation claim against Defendant Waddle. For example, an officer who 

at one point in time was supervised by Defendant Waddle in the past eight years could 

have been disciplined for something that occurred when Defendant Waddle was not

supervising him/her or for something that had nothing to do with Defendant Waddle.

Further, the request seeks confidential information which Defendant Waddle does 

not have access to as she does not have access to OIA and ISU investigations, and would 

therefore not know if an officer was disciplined. Simply because Defendant Waddle may 

supervise employees does not mean that she has knowledge of all investigations and/or 

discipline against them, and this violates third party rights. Particularly because Bryant 

cannot show that this information is relevant to his claims, the Court should protect the 

privacy interests of third parties and deny Bryant’s motion to compel this response.

Finally, while Bryant believes that he has evidence that Defendant Waddle and 

another Sergeant were disciplined for allegedly covering up the wrong-doing of other 

officers, Defendant Waddle has already indicated that no discipline has been sustained 

against her and Bryant has not provided evidence to refute this.

Ruling: Denied. The interrogatory seeks information which is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claim of 

retaliation by Waddle.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 15 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

ROG 14: “Describe in detail each and every set of staff misconduct those sergeants and

correctional officers you name in your response to Interrogatory No. 13 above were accused in the 

allegations made against them.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The term and phrase “staff misconduct,” is vague and ambiguous. This 

request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. This request calls for speculation as investigations by ISU and OIA are 

confidential and not necessarily disclosed to officers who may be subject of an 

investigation or to their supervisors. This request is overly broad as to time period and 

scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. This request violates the 

privacy rights of third parties. Finally, this violates the official information privilege

established by the analogous federal case law.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is 

not aware of such information as ISU and OIA investigations are confidential.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory and the terms and phrases therein are not at all vague or 

ambiguous to Waddle, and, in her response she has knowingly and deliberately lied under 

oath. And this Court should impose sanctions under its inherent power to control its 

docket for this bad faith by Defendant Waddle and also her counsel if they know it was 

false and instructed her to lie under oath, because they did not know I had documentary 

proof she and her sergeant, Sgt. Sica were investigated, found guilty and disciplined for

their attempt to cover-up deliberately illegal conduct by themselves and the staff they 

supervised, nor did they ever think I would be able to obtain any with their deliberate 

obstruction of discovery. This is all relevant to the subject matter of this case. Plaintiff 

incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Interrogatory No. 2, and 6-7,” and his 

“Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 28, 34-35 & 22-25 as though

fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As noted above, Bryant’s discovery request is impermissibly overbroad in time 

and scope, as it seeks information that has potentially nothing to do with this case. 

Although Bryant claims that this information about whether other officers were 

disciplined is relevant, he provides no explanation how relevancy to this case and 

specifically his retaliation claim against Defendant Waddle. For example, an officer who 

at one point in time was supervised by Defendant Waddle in the past eight years could 

have been disciplined for something that occurred when Defendant Waddle was not 

supervising him/her or for something that had nothing to do with Defendant Waddle.

Further, the request seeks confidential information which Defendant Waddle does 

not have access to as she does not have access to OIA and ISU investigations, and would 

therefore not know if an officer was disciplined. Simply because Defendant Waddle may 

supervise employees does not mean that she has knowledge of all investigations and/or 

discipline against them, and this violates third party rights. Particularly because Bryant 

cannot show that this information is relevant to his claims, the Court should protect the 

privacy interests of third parties and deny Bryant’s motion to compel this response. (See 

Decl. Hancock, Doc. # 77-1.)

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 16 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

Finally, while Bryant believes that he has evidence that Defendant Waddle and 

another Sergeant were disciplined for allegedly covering up the wrong-doing of other 

officers, Defendant Waddle has already indicated that no discipline has been sustained 

against her and Bryant has not provided evidence to refute this.

Ruling: Denied. The interrogatory seeks information which is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claim of 

retaliation by Waddle.

II. Request for Admissions

The Court next turns to Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant Waddle to respond to his Request 

for Admissions (“RFA”).

RFA 1: “Admit that between January 1, 2010 and present the date of your response that you have 

been investigated by the Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) Institution Services Unit (ISU) staff regarding 

allegations and complaints that you were involved in having inmates assaulted and physically harmed by 

staff and by other inmates.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “investigated,” 

and “complaints.” This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may 

have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. Further, this request calls for 

speculation as investigations by ISU are confidential and are not disclosed unless referred 

for an adverse action. This request also assumes facts not in evidence.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant can 

neither admit nor deny whether she has been investigated by ISU staff. Investigations by 

ISU are confidential and are not disclosed unless referred for an adverse action.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This request is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad or irrelevant to the subject 

matter. Defendant’s response is evasive, non-responsive and is made in bad faith in her 

attempt to cover-up that she has been investigated, found guilty and disciplined for her 

attempting to cover-up illegal conduct committed by her staff she supervised and she was 

going to allow an innocent inmate get convicted of a crime she knew he did not commit 

and possibly receive a life sentence under the three strikes law. See Exhibit “S” at p. 336. 

Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument’ 

above at p. 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental 

response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

ISU investigations are confidential. Without waiving this privilege, Defendant 

Waddle has requested ISU investigations that pertain to Bryant to determine if she has 

been investigated by ISU, she has not yet received any documents to refresh her 

recollection. Further, any purported investigation that does not have to do with Bryant is

irrelevant to this case and is impermissible character evidence. The confidentiality of 

such documents protected by the official information privilege and peace officer privilege 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 17 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

would heavily outweigh any probative value.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has responded that she is unaware of any such investigations. 

RFA 2: “Admit that between January 1, 2008 and the present date of your response that you 

have been investigated by CDCR’s Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) staff regarding allegations or 

complaints that you were involved in having inmates assaulted and physically harmed by staff and by 

other inmates.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “investigated,” 

“allegations,” and “complaints.” This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant 

information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether 

Defendant may have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. Further, this request 

calls for speculation as investigations by OIA are confidential and are not disclosed

unless referred for an adverse action. This request also assumes facts not in evidence.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant can neither admit nor deny whether 

she has been investigated by ISU staff. Investigations by OIA are confidential and are not 

disclosed unless referred for an adverse action.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This request is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad or irrelevant to the subject 

matter of the case. Defendant Waddle is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct 

investigation policies and procedure and knows all these terms. See Exhibit X at p. 362-

364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his 

“Contentions re Admission No. 1,” and his “Preliminary Statement and General 

Argument” above at p. 46 & 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive 

response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

OIA investigations are confidential. Without waiving this privilege, Defendant 

Waddle has requested OIA investigations that pertain to Bryant to determine if she has 

been investigated by OIA, she has not yet received any documents to refresh her 

recollection.

Further, any purported investigation that does not have to do with Bryant is

irrelevant to this case and is impermissible character evidence. The confidentiality of 

such documents protected by the official information privilege and peace officer privilege 

would heavily outweigh any probative value.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has responded that she is unaware of any such investigations. 

RFA 3: “Admit that between January 1, 2008 and the present date of your response that you have 

been investigated by ISU staff at KVSP regarding allegations or complaints that you were involved in 

covering up misconduct by other correctional staff and yourself.”

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 18 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “investigated,” 

“allegations,” and “complaints.” This request is vague and ambiguous as to what alleged 

cover-up and misconduct plaintiff is referring to. This request is overly board and seeks 

irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to 

whether Defendant may have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff.

Further, this request calls for speculation as investigations by ISU are confidential 

and are not disclosed unless referred for an adverse action. This request also assumes 

facts not in evidence.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant can neither admit nor deny whether 

she has been investigated by ISU staff. Investigations by ISU are confidential and are not 

disclosed unless referred for an adverse action.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This response is knowingly false and evasive and made in bad faith in an attempt 

to conceal Waddle’s prior bad acts of this same exact nature. Plaintiff incorporates by 

reference his “Contentions re Admission No. 1 & 2,” and his “Preliminary Statement and 

General Argument” above at p. 46-47 & 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A 

substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

ISU investigations are confidential. Without waiving this privilege, Defendant 

Waddle has requested ISU investigations that pertain to Bryant to determine if she has 

been investigated by ISU, she has not yet received any documents to refresh her 

recollection.

Further, any purported investigation that does not have to do with Bryant is

irrelevant to this case and is impermissible character evidence. The confidentiality of 

such documents protected by the official information privilege and peace officer privilege 

would heavily outweigh any probative value.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has responded that she is unaware of any such investigations. 

RFA 4: “Admit that between January 1, 2008 and the present date of your response that you have 

been investigated by CDCR’s OIA staff regarding allegations or complaints that you were involved in 

covering up misconduct by other correctional staff and yourself.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “investigated,” 

“allegations,” and “complaints.” This request is vague and ambiguous as to what alleged 

cover-up and misconduct plaintiff is referring to. This request is overly board and seeks 

irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to 

whether Defendant may have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. Further, 

this request calls for speculation as investigations by OIA are confidential and are not

disclosed unless referred for an adverse action. This request also assumes facts not in 

evidence.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant can neither admit nor deny whether 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 19 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20

she has been investigated by OIA staff. Investigations by OIA are confidential and are 

not disclosed unless referred for an adverse action.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This response is knowingly false and evasive and made in bad faith in an attempt 

to conceal Waddle’s prior bad acts of this same exact nature. Plaintiff incorporates by 

reference his “Contentions re Admission No. 1 & 2,” and his “Preliminary Statement and 

General Argument” above at p. 46-47 & 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A 

substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

OIA investigations are confidential. Without waiving this privilege, Defendant 

Waddle has requested ISU investigations that pertain to Bryant to determine if she has 

been investigated by ISU, she has not yet received any documents to refresh her 

recollection.

Further, any purported investigation that does not have to do with Bryant is

irrelevant to this case and is impermissible character evidence. The confidentiality of 

such documents protected by the official information privilege and peace officer privilege 

would heavily outweigh any probative value.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has responded that she is unaware of any such investigations. 

RFA 5: “Admit that you were found guilty of being involved in the cover up of misconduct by 

other correctional staff.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term “guilty.” This 

request is vague and ambiguous as to what alleged cover-up and misconduct plaintiff is 

referring to. This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not calculated 

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may have 

engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. This request also assumes facts not in

evidence.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Deny.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This response is knowingly false and evasive and made in bad faith in an attempt 

to conceal Waddle’s prior bad acts of this same exact nature. Plaintiff incorporates by 

reference his “Contentions re Admission No. 1 & 2,” and his “Preliminary Statement and 

General Argument” above at p. 46-47 & 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A 

substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Defendant Waddle directly responded to Bryant’s Request for Admission. While 

he argues that her answer was evasive, he provides no explanation to support his 

contention. Additionally, Bryant contends that Defendant Waddle’s response was 

knowingly false and made in bad faith. Again, Bryant has no support for this contention.

Further, Bryant admits that he is seeking this evidence to show prior bad acts.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 20 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21

This is impermissible character evidence, and Defendant Waddle incorporates by

reference her response from Request For Admission No. 3, indicating that Bryant is not 

entitled to such evidence.

Finally, even if Bryant believed that Defendant Waddle was lying, this would not 

be grounds for a Motion to Compel. There is no response to compel because Defendant 

Waddle responded to Plaintiff’s request.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request.

RFA 6: “Admit that you were disciplined for being involved in the cover-up of misconduct by 

other correctional staff.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term “disciplined.” This 

request is vague and ambiguous as to what alleged coverup and misconduct plaintiff is 

referring to. This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not calculated 

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may have 

engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. This request also assumes facts not in

evidence.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Deny.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This response is knowingly false and evasive and made in bad faith in an attempt 

to conceal Waddle’s prior bad acts of this same exact nature. Plaintiff incorporates by 

reference his “Contentions re Admission No. 1 & 2,” and his “Preliminary Statement and 

General Argument” above at p. 46-47 & 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A 

substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Defendant Waddle directly responded to Bryant’s Request for Admission. While 

he argues that her answer was evasive, he provides no explanation to support his 

contention. Additionally, Bryant contends that Defendant Waddle’s response was 

knowingly false and made in bad faith. Again, Bryant has no support for this contention.

Further, Bryant admits that he is seeking this evidence to show prior bad acts.

This is impermissible character evidence, and Defendant Waddle incorporates by

reference her response from Request For Admission No. 3, indicating that Bryant is not 

entitled to such evidence.

Finally, even if Bryant believed that Defendant Waddle was lying, this would not 

be grounds for a Motion to Compel. There is no response to compel because Defendant 

Waddle responded to Plaintiff’s request.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request.

RFA 7: “Admit that in August 2011 inmate Cleave McCloud, CDCR No. J- 55573 filed a CDCR 

602 appeal against you alleging that you asked him to assault other inmates for you and paid him to do it, 

and he assaulted them.”

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 21 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may 

have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. This request also assumes facts not 

in evidence and is compound.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this request, and on that basis, denies it.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This response is knowingly false and evasive and made in bad faith in an attempt 

to conceal that she was accused by McCloud of paying him to assault other inmates for 

her. This is relevant to the subject matter of this case and definitely calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence and other prior bad acts. Plaintiff incorporates by 

reference his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 22-25 as though 

fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Bryant’s response seeks information unavailable to Defendant Waddle as she

does not have Inmate Cleave McCloud’s central file. Requiring Defendant Waddle to 

respond to this request would require an undue burden of searching through inmate 

McCloud’s central file, which would also be a violation of the privacy rights of a third 

party.

Further, Bryant admits that he is seeking this evidence to show prior bad acts.

This is impermissible character evidence, and Defendant Waddle incorporates by

reference her response from Request For Admission No. 3, indicating that Bryant is not 

entitled to such evidence.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request.

RFA 8: “Admit that inmate Louis Flores CDCR No. D-56628 filed a complaint alleging that you 

had inmate McCloud, CDCR No. J-55573 and another inmate assault him for you.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may 

have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. This request also assumes facts not 

in evidence and is compound.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this request, and on that basis, denies it.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This request is not overly broad and it seeks information that is relevant to the 

subject matter of this case. It is not compound as it only asks one question. Plaintiff 

incorporates by reference his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 

22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is 

necessary.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 22 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Bryant’s response seeks information unavailable to Defendant Waddle as she

does not have Inmate Louis Flores’ central file. Requiring Defendant Waddle to respond 

to this request would require an undue burden of searching through inmate Flores’ central 

file, particularly because Bryant does not identify the time period in which Inmate Flores 

allegedly filed such an appeal. This request would also be a violation of the privacy rights 

of a third party.

Further, this is irrelevant to Bryant’s claims for retaliation. This is impermissible 

character evidence, and Defendant Waddle incorporates by reference her response from 

Request For Admission No. 3, indicating that Bryant is not entitled to such evidence.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request.

RFA 9: “Admit that inmate Leonard Scott, CDCR No. P-66018 filed a complaint alleging that 

other correctional staff had inmate McCloud CDCR No. J-55573 assault him for them and those staff 

alleged by him were under your supervision.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may 

have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. This request also assumes facts not 

in evidence and is compound. Finally, this request calls for speculation.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this request, and on that basis, denies it.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This request is not overly broad and it seeks information that is relevant to the 

subject matter of this case. It is not compound as it only asks one question. Plaintiff 

incorporates by reference his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 

22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is 

necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Bryant’s response seeks information unavailable to Defendant Waddle as she

does not have Inmate Leonard Scott’s central file. Requiring Defendant Waddle to

respond to this request would require an undue burden of searching through inmate

Scott’s central file, particularly because Bryant does not identify the time period in which 

Inmate Scott allegedly filed such an appeal. This request would also be a violation of the 

privacy rights of a third party.

Further, this is irrelevant to Bryant’s claims for retaliation. This is impermissible 

character evidence, and Defendant Waddle incorporates by reference her response from 

Request For Admission No. 3, indicating that Bryant is not entitled to such evidence.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request.

RFA 10: “Admit that you were the lieutenant and supervisor of all the sergeants and correctional 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 23 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24

officers on facility’s “C” & “D” while you were working on those facilities.”

Defendant’s Response: 

Objection. This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may 

have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. This request is vague and 

ambiguous as to time and what institution Plaintiff is referring to.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Admit that 

Defendant was a lieutenant who supervised sergeants and officers.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

Defendant did not specifically admit that she was the supervisor of the sergeants 

and correctional officers (all) while she was working on Facility “C” and “D” and her 

response is incomplete. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Preliminary Statement 

and General Argument” above at p. 22- 25 as though fully set forth right here. A 

substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Defendant Waddle’s response was sufficient because she answered to the best of 

her abilities despite Bryant’s vague and ambiguous Request. Bryant did not clarify which 

institution or time period he was referring to. Further, it is unclear if Bryant meant 

whether Defendant Waddle was the supervisor to the officers during her shift or all shifts. 

Had Bryant provided clarification about which specific officers he was addressing, then 

Defendant Waddle would have been able to more completely respond to such a request.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request.

RFA 11: “Admit that from January 1, 2005 to the present date of your response that sergeants 

and correctional officers working under your supervision on facility “C” & “D” have had numerous staff 

misconduct complaints and 602 Appeals filed against them alleging they illegally assaulted or physically

abused inmates or had other inmates assault inmates for them.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “staff misconduct 

complaints” and “supervision.” This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant 

information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether 

Defendant may have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. This request also 

assumes facts not in evidence and is compound. Finally, this request calls for speculation.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant can 

neither admit nor deny whether other staff members have been investigated by OIA staff. 

Investigations by OIA are confidential and would not be disclosed to other staff 

members.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This request is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, compound or irrelevant to the 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 24 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25

subject matter of this case. Defendant Waddle is a training officer for CDCR on staff 

misconduct investigation policies and procedure and knows these terms, and it asks only 

one question. See Exhibit X at p. 362-264, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 23-25. 

Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Admission No. 5,” and his

“Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 48 & 22-25 as though fully 

set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Bryant’s request seeks information simply not available to Defendant Waddle. As 

Defendant Waddle explained in her response, OIA investigations are confidential and 

would not be disclosed to other staff members. Requiring Defendant Waddle to obtain 

this information would violate third party privacy as well as peace officer privileges. 

Therefore, Defendant Waddle does not know whether other staff members, even 

individuals she supervised, were investigated. Bryant does not respond to this in his 

Motion to Compel.

Further, to the extent that Bryant is also inquiring about 602 appeals, Defendant 

Waddle has also explained that these are not kept by staff members, but are rather 

categorized by inmates. Therefore, she would not be able to answer this request without 

going through the central files of all inmates to determine the number of complaints filed 

against her staff over the course of over ten years.

Ruling: Denied. Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant has failed to answer the request to the 

best of her ability.

RFA 12: “Admit that from January 1, 2005 to the present date of your response that ISU staff at 

KVSP and CDCR’s OIA staff have repeatedly investigated the sergeants and correctional officers you 

supervised on facility “C” & “D” for allegations and complaints of illegally assaulting inmates and 

having inmates assault other inmates for them.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “investigated,” 

and “supervised,” “allegations,” and “complaints.” This request is overly board and seeks 

irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to 

whether Defendant may have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. This 

request also assumes facts not in evidence and is compound. Further, this request calls for

speculation as investigations of other correctional staff by ISU and OIA are confidential 

and would not be revealed to third parties such as defendant.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant can 

neither admit nor deny whether other staff members have been investigated by ISU staff. 

Investigations by ISU are confidential and would not be disclosed to other staff members.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This request is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, compound or irrelevant to the 

subject matter of this case. Defendant Waddle is a training officer for CDCR on staff 

misconduct investigation policies and procedure and knows these terms, and it asks only 

one question. See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 23-25. 

Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Admission No. 3,” and his

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 25 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26

“Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 48 & 22-25 as though fully 

set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Bryant’s request seeks information simply not available to Defendant Waddle. As 

Defendant Waddle explained in her response, ISU and OIA investigations are 

confidential and would not be disclosed to other staff members. Requiring Defendant 

Waddle to obtain this information would violate third party privacy as well as peace 

officer privileges. Bryant does not respond to this in his Motion to Compel. Therefore, 

Defendant Waddle does not know whether other staff members, even individuals she 

supervised, were investigated, and Bryant’s Motion to Compel should be denied.

Ruling: Denied. Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant has failed to answer the request to the 

best of her ability.

RFA 13: “Admit that from January 1, 2005 to the present date of your response other 

correctional staff have given statements to ISU and OIA staff during investigations that you, sergeants, 

and other staff you supervised were illegally assaulting inmates and having inmates assault other inmates 

for you.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “investigated,” 

and “supervised.” This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may 

have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. This request also assumes facts not 

in evidence and is compound. Further, this request calls for speculation as investigations 

of other correctional staff by ISU and OIA are confidential and would not be revealed to 

third parties such as defendant.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant can 

neither admit nor deny this request as Investigations by ISU and OIA are confidential.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This Request is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, compound or irrelevant to 

the subject matter of this case. Defendant Waddle is a training officer for CDCR on staff 

misconduct investigation policies and procedure and knows these terms, and it asks only 

one question. See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 23-25. 

Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Admission No. 3,” and his

“Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 38 * 22-25 as though fully 

set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Bryant’s request seeks information simply not available to Defendant Waddle. As 

Defendant Waddle explained in her response, ISU and OIA investigations are 

confidential and she would not be entitled to know if correctional staff members gave 

statements against her. Bryant does not respond to this in his Motion to Compel. 

Therefore, Defendant Waddles lacks sufficient information to respond to this request.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 26 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27

Ruling: Denied. Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant has failed to answer the request to the 

best of her ability.

RFA 14: “Admit that on August 25, 2011 you sent Lt. P. Morales to Ad-Seg to interview inmate 

McCloud CDCR No. J-55573 and myself regarding our allegations against you and Lt. Morales 

videotaped both our statements for you.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may 

have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. This request is also compound.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this request, and on that basis, denies it.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This request is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, compound or irrelevant to the 

subject matter and will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff 

incorporates by reference his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 

22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is 

necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Contrary to Bryant’s assertion, this request was compound as it requests

Defendant admit 1) she sent Lieutenant Morales to interview inmate McCloud, 2) she 

sent Lieutenant Morales to interview inmate Bryant, and 3) such interviews were 

videotaped.

Although Defendant Waddle does not believe that she would be involved in

conducting an investigation involving herself, Defendant Waddle has requested

documents to verify if she sent Lieutenant Morales to interview inmate McCloud and/or 

inmate Bryant, and if such interview was videotaped. She has not yet received any 

documents that she could use to refresh her recollection to admit or deny this request.

Ruling: Denied. The request is compound. Even so, Defendant has answered the request and 

Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant has failed to answer the request to the best of her ability.

RFA 15: “Admit that you have received disciplinary action against you more than once for 

misconduct between January 1, 2008 and the date of your response.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “disciplinary 

action” and “misconduct.” This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information 

not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant 

may have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. This request also assumes facts 

not in evidence.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 27 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Deny.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This response is knowingly false and evasive and made in bad faith in an attempt 

to conceal Waddle’s prior bad acts and the discipline she received therefore from her 

employer CDCR. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Admission No. 1 

& 2,” and his” Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 46-47 & 22-25 

as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Defendant Waddle directly responded to Bryant’s Request for Admission. While 

he argues that her answer was evasive, he provides no explanation to support his 

contention. Additionally, Bryant contends that Defendant Waddle’s response was 

knowingly false and made in bad faith. Again, Bryant has no support for this contention.

Further, Bryant admits that he is seeking this evidence to show prior bad acts.

This is impermissible character evidence, and Defendant Waddle incorporates by

reference her response from Request For Admission No. 3, indicating that Bryant is not 

entitled to such evidence.

Finally, even if Bryant believed that Defendant Waddle was lying, this would not 

be grounds for a Motion to Compel. There is no response to compel because Defendant 

Waddle responded to Plaintiff’s request.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request.

RFA 16: “Admit that you were not interviewed or questioned by anyone regarding the 

allegations inmate Flores, CDCR No. D-56628 made against you regarding your having him assaulted by 

inmate McCloud CDCR No. J-55573.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “interviewed,” 

“questioned” and “anyone.” This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information 

not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant 

may have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. This request is compound. This 

request assumes facts not in evidence.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this request, and denies it on that basis.

Plaintiff’s Answer:

This request is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, compound or irrelevant to the 

subject matter of this case, and it asks only one question. Defendant Waddle is a training 

officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and procedure and knows all 

these terms. See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 23-25. 

Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument”

above at p. 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental 

response is necessary.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 28 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

First, the allegations regarding inmate Flores against inmate McCloud are

irrelevant to this case. To the extent that Bryant is claiming that this is a prior bad act, this 

is impermissible character evidence, and Defendant Waddle incorporates by reference her 

response from Request For Admission No. 3, indicating that Bryant is not entitled to such 

evidence.

Defendant Waddle does not have the investigation regarding inmate Flores, and 

therefore cannot confirm whether such an investigation took place or whether she was 

interviewed.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request and Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant 

has failed to answer the request to the best of her ability.

RFA 17: “Admit that the O.P. policies and procedures referred to in Request No. 20 above were 

not strictly complied with in the investigations of staff misconduct alleged against you by KVSP inmates 

conducted by the ISU staff there.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term “O.P. policies.” 

This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may have engaged in 

retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. This request assumes facts not in evidence and calls 

for speculation.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant can 

neither admit nor deny this request as Investigations by ISU are confidential, and on that 

basis, Defendant denies.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This request is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad or irrelevant to the subject 

matter of this case. Defendant Waddle is a training officer for CDCR in staff misconduct 

investigation policies and procedure sand knows all these terms used. See Exhibit X at p. 

362-364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by 

reference his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 22-25 as though 

fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As stated above, the allegations regarding inmate Flores against inmate McCloud 

are irrelevant to this case. To the extent that Bryant is claiming that this is a prior bad act, 

this is impermissible character evidence, and Defendant Waddle incorporates by 

reference her response from Request For Admission No. 3, indicating that Bryant is not 

entitled to such evidence.

Defendant Waddle does not have the investigation regarding inmate Flores, and 

therefore cannot confirm whether such an investigation took place or whether the CDCR 

protocols were followed. Such a response would require improper speculation.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request that she does not possess such 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 29 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

information.

RFA 18: “Admit that the O.P. policies and procedures referred to in Request No. 20 above were 

not strictly complied with in this investigations of staff misconduct alleged against the sergeants and 

correctional officers under your supervision on facility’s “C” & “D” by KVSP inmates conducted by ISU

staff here.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term “O.P policies and 

procedures.” This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not calculated 

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may have 

engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. This request assumes facts not in 

evidence and calls for speculation.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant can 

neither admit nor deny this request as Investigations by ISU are confidential, and on that 

basis, Defendant denies.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This request is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad or irrelevant to the subject 

matter of this case. Defendant Waddle is a training officer for CDCR in staff misconduct 

investigation policies and procedure and knows all these terms used and knew what this 

term meant in her response to Admission No. 20 above. See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, 

Waddle’s response to Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his 

“Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at P. 22-25 as though fully set 

forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As stated above, the allegations regarding inmate Flores against inmate McCloud 

are irrelevant to this case. To the extent that Bryant is claiming that this is a prior bad act, 

this is impermissible character evidence, and Defendant Waddle incorporates by 

reference her response from Request For Admission No. 3, indicating that Bryant is not 

entitled to such evidence. Defendant Waddle does not have the investigation regarding 

inmate Flores, and therefore cannot confirm whether such an investigation took place or 

whether the CDCR protocols were followed with respect to other staff members.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request that she does not possess such 

information.

RFA 19: “Admit that Plaintiff filed staff misconduct complaints against you alleging that you 

were actively conspiring with other custody staff and inmates to have him stabbed and shot and killed.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to “staff misconduct 

complaints.” This request seeks information equally available to plaintiff. Further, this 

request calls for speculation as staff complaints may be confidential and are not disclosed 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 30 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31

unless referred for an adverse action.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this request, and on that basis, denies it.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This request is not vague or ambiguous to this defendant. Defendant Waddle is a 

training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigations policies and procedure and 

knows these terms well. See Exhibit X at p. 362- 364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions 

No. 23-25. This information is confidential and in possession of CDCR her employer and 

is not equally available to Plaintiff. And if this is her contention then all the other

information I’ve requested if discovery and the subject of this motion is equally available 

to her due to her principal-agent relationship with CDCR and she should be compelled by 

this Court to provide everything I’ve requested. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his 

“Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 22-25 as though fully set 

forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Bryant’s argument that this information is not equally available to him is

unavailing. Although staff misconduct investigations are confidential, Bryant would 

know if he filed a complaint against Defendant Waddle.

Nonetheless, based upon further discovery, including Bryant’s deposition,

Defendant Waddle has reason to believe that Bryant never filed a complaint and/or

exhausted his administrative remedies against Defendant Waddle for allegedly having 

him assaulted. Defendant Waddle intends to file a Motion for Summary Judgment based 

on failure to exhaust.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request and Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant 

has failed to answer the request to the best of her ability.

RFA 20: “Admit that in 2011 you discovered that ISU Lt. Stiles was investigating you for 

allegedly having inmate McCloud assault and beat up other inmates for you and that inmate McCloud 

CDCR No. J-55573 was assisting him and ISU c/o B.R. Jackson in their investigation of you.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term “investigating.” 

This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may have engaged in 

retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. Further, this request calls for speculation as 

investigations by ISU are confidential and are not disclosed unless referred for an adverse 

action. This request is also compound.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant can 

neither admit nor deny this request as Investigations by ISU are confidential.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This request is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad and does seek only 

information relevant to the subject matter of this case. Defendant Waddle is a training 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 31 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

32

officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigations policies and procedure and knows 

these terms well. See Exhibit X at p. 362- 364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 

23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Preliminary Statement and General 

Argument” above at p. 22- 25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive 

supplement response is necessary. This request only asks one question and is not 

compound.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Although Bryant alleges that this request is not compound, it seeks separate

information as to whether Lieutenant Stiles was allegedly investigating Defendant

Waddle, and whether inmate McCloud was assisting in the investigation. Defendant 

Waddle would not know whether inmate McCloud was assisting in a purported ISU 

investigation, as these are confidential. Therefore, Defendant Waddle would not be able 

to respond as this would call for speculation.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request and Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant 

has failed to answer the request to the best of her ability.

RFA 21: “Admit that inmate McCloud, CDCR No. J-55573 later filed staff misconduct 

complaints against you alleging that you were conspiring with other custody staff and inmates to have 

him assaulted and possibly killed.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to “staff misconduct 

complaints.” This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not calculated 

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may have 

engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. Further, this request calls for speculation 

as investigations by ISU are confidential and are not disclosed unless referred for an 

adverse action. This request is also compound.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this request, and on that basis, denies it.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Admissions No. 27,” and 

his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 63, 22-25 as though fully 

set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Bryant fails to explain why this response is deficient. While he incorporates his 

contentions from Admission No. 27, this seeks different information. As explained by 

Defendant Waddle, ISU investigations are confidential. Further, Defendant Waddle does 

not have inmate McCloud’s central file. Requiring Defendant Waddle to go through 

inmate McCloud’s central file to verify this information would not only be unduly 

burdensome (as Bryant seeks this information from numerous other inmates as well), but 

also a potential violation of third party privacy rights.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request and Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 32 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

33

has failed to answer the request to the best of her ability.

RFA 22: “Admit that in early 2011 there was a c/o Sanchez who worked in the facility “D”, 

building 1 control booth who was investigated by ISU staff for conspiring to have other inmates assault 

McCloud during which time he was allegedly going to shoot him because he found out that McCloud 

was working for ISU in investigating staff.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to “investigated.” This request 

is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may have engaged in retaliatory conduct 

against Plaintiff. Further, this request calls for speculation as investigations by ISU of 

other correctional staff are confidential and would not be disclosed to defendant.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant can 

neither admit nor deny this request as Investigations by ISU are confidential.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

This request is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad and does seek only

information relevant to the subject matter of this case. Plaintiff incorporates by reference 

his “Contentions re Admission No. 27,” and his “Preliminary Statement and General 

Argument” above at p. 63 / 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive 

supplemental response is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Bryant fails to explain why this response is deficient. While he incorporates

his contentions from Admission No. 27, this seeks different information. As explained 

by Defendant Waddle, ISU investigations are confidential, and she would not access to 

investigations concerning another officer such as Officer Sanchez. This request therefore 

requires improper speculation.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request and Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant 

has failed to answer the request to the best of her ability.

RFA 23: “Admit that you were the supervisor of c/o Sanchez referred to in Request No. 29 

above when the actions were alleged to have occurred in Request No. 29 above.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request is overly board and seeks irrelevant information not 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant may 

have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is 

unable to admit or deny the allegations as she does not if Officer Sanchez was 

investigated or what time period these allegations pertained to.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 33 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

34

Plaintiff’s Argument:

Plaintiff gave the time period in request No. 29 above which was early 2011 so it 

is not overly broad. And this request is relevant to the subject matter of this case. Plaintiff 

incorporates by reference his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 

22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is 

necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Although Bryant contends that his request was narrowed down to the early 2011 

time period, Defendant Waddle still does not know the date of the alleged incident for 

which there was a purported investigation because ISU investigations are confidential. 

Defendant Waddle has supervised many staff members, which changed based on day and 

shift. Without that information, Defendant Waddle cannot admit or deny whether Officer 

Sanchez was under her supervision on that day.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the request and Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant 

has failed to answer the request to the best of her ability.

III. Request for Production of Documents

The Court next turns to Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant Waddle to respond to his Request 

for Production of Documents (“RPD”). The Court will address the requests in group, because the same 

reasons for denial apply for multiple requests.

In requests 1-5, 12-15, 27-30, and 35, Plaintiff requested various documents and things that 

Defendant stated she did not possess. To the extent she was able to acquire them, she stated she would 

produce them or provide a privilege log. For these requests, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant’s 

response was insufficient. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel these requests is denied.

In requests 6, 23, 24, 25, and 33, Plaintiff requested documents and things that Defendant stated 

she had already produced. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how Defendant’s response was inadequate. 

Therefore, these requests are denied.

In requests 16 and 22, Plaintiff requested documents and lists which do not exist and would 

require Defendant to create said documents. Defendant cannot be compelled to create a document. 

Thus, these requests are denied.

The Court will address the remaining requests in turn. 

RPD 7: “All CDCR 602 appeals, staff misconduct complaints and citizen complaints filed 

against both Defendants which made allegations that they personally assaulted a (sic) inmate, had 

another staff member assault a (sic) inmate, had any other inmate(s) assault any inmate, or was in any 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 34 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

35

way involved in the assault or physically harming a (sic) inmate, including the official responses thereto, 

from 1/1/08 to the present date of your response.”

Defendant’s Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the ground that this request: (1) assumes 

facts not in evidence; (2) is compound; (3) is overbroad as to time period; (4) calls for 

speculation; (5) is unduly burdensome as administrative appeals are not maintained 

according to the staff complained of in the appeal and there are no staff files for 

administrative grievances. Rather, administrative appeals are logged and maintained 

according to the inmate who submitted them. A copy of the appeals is kept in the prison’s 

Appeals Office, and another copy is placed in the inmate’s central file. Thus, to

comply with this request, Defendant would be required to review each inmate’s prison 

central file to determine if there are responsive documents; (6) to the extent that the 

request seeks documents contained in Defendant’s personnel file, it violates the official 

information privilege; (7) violates the privacy rights of third parties; (8) seeks irrelevant 

information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 

and (9) seeks documents which are protected pursuant to the peace officer personnel

records privilege (California Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and California 

Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, and 1045). Accordingly no response is provided 

hereto.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Preliminary Statement and General 

Argument” above at p. 22-25 at though fully set forth right here. A substantive 

supplemental response with full production of the requested records is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As explained by Defendant Waddle, this request is both impermissibly broad and 

unduly burdensome because inmate appeals are not categorized by staff member or type 

of incident. Rather, they are maintained according to each inmate, and requiring 

Defendant Waddle to respond would force her to review the central file of every inmate 

housed at Kern Valley State Prison since 2008. Such a request would also potentially 

violate the privacy rights of third parties and seek confidential documents.

The undue burden of this request far outweighs the probative value of this

request, as it appears that Bryant is only seeking these documents unrelated to his

complaint as inadmissible character evidence. Character evidence is normally not

admissible in a civil rights case. Gates v. Rivera, 993 F.2d 697, 700 (9th Cir. 1993); Cohn 

v. Papke, 655 F.2d 191, 193 (9th Cir. 1981). Rule 404 generally prohibits the admission 

of evidence of a person's character for the purpose of proving that the individual acted in 

conformity with that character on a particular occasion. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). (“Evidence 

of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in 

order to show action in conformity therewith.”); Heath v. Cast, 813 F.2d 254, 259 (9th 

Cir. 1987.) Evidence regarding prison’s staff’s past conduct with respect to other inmates 

is inadmissible, and Bryant will not be able to argue that Defendant Waddle acted in 

conformity therewith.

Finally, Bryant has failed to explain with any particularity why he specifically 

needs these documents or how he would be prejudiced without them.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s request is granted in part. Defendants’ boilerplate objections are overruled. 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 35 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

36

In addition, Defendants’ argument that the interrogatory would be nearly impossible to answer because 

of the way files are kept at Kern Valley State Prison is overruled. Defendants may not avoid discovery 

by keeping records in a certain manner, and then claim that producing those records would be an undue 

burden because of the manner of storage chosen. The Court is aware of many prisoner cases in which 

such information has been provided.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s request for complaints from the period of January 1, 2008, seeks 

information that is irrelevant to this case. The relevant date in this case is June 8, 2010, which is the date 

of the alleged assault by Officers Gallagher and Romero. It was this incident that Plaintiff claims 

provided the motivation for Waddle to begin her alleged pattern of retaliation against him. Plaintiff is 

entitled to evidence which would disclose a pattern of retaliation. Therefore, Defendants’ objection to 

this request as inadmissible character evidence is overruled, and Defendants are ordered to provide a 

further response to the request by producing any staff misconduct complaints or 602 appeals from any 

inmate from June 8, 2010, to the present, wherein inmates complained of retaliation by Defendants 

Castellanos and Waddle, or that Defendants physically assaulted an inmate or had another inmate assault 

someone.

RPD 8: “All records of all investigations conducted into any of the appeals and complaints in 

response to No. 7 above, including the recorded interviews of any and all witnesses or persons having 

any information regarding said com (sic) complaint(s), and all records and findings resulting from the

investigations.

Defendant’s Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the ground that this request: (1) assumes

facts not in evidence; (2) is compound; (3) is vague and ambiguous as to the term 

“complaints,” (4) is overbroad as to time period; (5) calls for speculation; (6) is unduly 

burdensome as administrative appeals are not maintained according to the staff 

complained of in the appeal and there are no staff files for administrative grievances. 

Rather, administrative appeals are logged and maintained according to the inmate who 

submitted them. A copy of the appeals is kept in the prison’s Appeals Office, and another 

copy is placed in the inmate’s central file. Thus, to comply with this request, Defendant 

would be required to review each inmate’s prison central file to determine if there are 

responsive documents; (7) to the extent that the request seeks documents contained in 

Defendant’s personnel file, it violates the official information privilege; (8) violates the 

privacy rights of third parties; and (9) seeks irrelevant information not reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (9) seeks documents 

which are protected pursuant to the peace officer personnel records privilege (California 

Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and California Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 36 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

37

and 1045). Accordingly no response is provided hereto.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Preliminary Statement and General

Argument” above at p. 22-25 at though fully set forth right here. A substantive 

supplemental response with full production of the requested records is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As explained by Defendant Waddle, this request is both impermissibly broad and 

unduly burdensome because inmate appeals are not categorized by staff member or type 

of incident. Rather, they are maintained according to each inmate, and requiring 

Defendant Waddle to respond would force her to review the central file of every inmate 

housed at Kern Valley State Prison since 2008. Such a request would also potentially 

violate the privacy rights of third parties and seek confidential documents.

Further, Defendant Waddle incorporates by reference her response from Request 

No. 7 indicating that Bryant is seeking inadmissible character evidence. Finally, Bryant 

has failed to explain with any particularity why he specifically needs these documents or 

how he would be prejudiced without them.

Ruling: Denied. Defendant’s objection that the request is impermissibly overbroad is welltaken. Plaintiff’s request for all records of all investigations into the above-mentioned staff complaints 

could potentially violate the privacy rights of third parties and disclose confidential information thereby 

compromising the safety and security of individuals and the prison.

RPD 9: “All CDCR 602 appeals, Staff misconduct complaints and citizen complaints filed 

against both Defendants which made: allegations that they committed any other illegal acts, or were 

involved in any other illegal acts against any inmate from 1/1/08 to the present date of your response.”

Defendant’s Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the ground that this request: (1) assumes 

facts not in evidence; (2) is compound; (3) is overbroad as to time period; (4) is vague 

and ambiguous as to the term “other illegal acts”; (5) is unduly burdensome as 

administrative appeals are not maintained according to the staff complained of in the 

appeal and there are no staff files for administrative grievances. Rather, administrative 

appeals are logged and maintained according to the inmate who submitted them. A copy 

of the appeals is kept in the prison’s Appeals Office, and another copy is placed in the 

inmate’s central file. Thus, to comply with this request, Defendant would be required to 

review each inmate’s prison central file to determine if there are responsive documents; 

(6) to the extent that the request seeks documents contained in Defendant’s personnel file, 

it violates the official information privilege; (7) violates the privacy rights of third 

parties; (8) seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence; and (9) seeks documents which are protected pursuant to the 

peace officer personnel records privilege (California Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 

and California Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, and 1045). Accordingly no response 

is provided hereto.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 37 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

38

Plaintiff’s Argument:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Preliminary Statement and General 

Argument” above at p. 22-25 at though fully set forth right here. A substantive 

supplemental response with full production of the requested records is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

This request is both impermissibly broad and unduly burdensome because inmate 

appeals are not categorized by staff member or type of incident. Rather, they are 

maintained according to each inmate, and requiring Defendant Waddle to respond would 

force her to review the central file of every inmate housed at Kern Valley State Prison 

since 2008. Such a request would also potentially violate the privacy rights of third 

parties and seek confidential documents.

Further, Defendant Waddle incorporates by reference her response from Request 

No. 7 indicating that Bryant is seeking inadmissible character evidence.

Finally, Bryant has failed to explain with any particularity why he specifically 

needs these documents or how he would be prejudiced without them.

Ruling: Denied. The documentation Plaintiff seeks is irrelevant to his claims. Under Fed. R.

Evid. 404(b), evidence of Defendant’s prior bad acts may not be introduced for the purpose of proving 

Defendant’s character in order to show action in conformity therewith.

RPD 10: “All documents and records of all investigations conducted into any of the appeals and 

complaints in response to No. 9 above, including all recorded interviews of any and all witnesses or 

persons having any information regarding said complaint(s), and all records and findings resulting from 

the investigations.”

Defendant’s Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the ground that this request: (1) assumes acts 

not in evidence; (2) is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “documents,” “records,” 

“investigations,” “appeals,” and “complaints,” (3) is overbroad as to time period; (4) calls 

for speculation; (5) is unduly burdensome as administrative appeals are not maintained 

according to the staff complained of in the appeal and there are no staff files for

administrative grievances. Rather, administrative appeals are logged and maintained 

according to the inmate who submitted them. A copy of the appeals is kept in the prison’s 

Appeals Office, and another copy is placed in the inmate’s central file. Thus, to comply 

with this request, Defendant would be required to review each inmate’s prison central file 

to determine if there are responsive documents; (6) to the extent that the request seeks 

documents contained in Defendant’s personnel file, it violates the official information

privilege; (7) violates the privacy rights of third parties; (8) seeks irrelevant information 

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (9) seeks 

documents which are protected pursuant to the peace officer personnel records privilege 

(California Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and California Evidence Code sections 

1040, 1043, and 1045). Accordingly no response is provided hereto.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 38 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

39

Plaintiff’s Argument:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Preliminary Statement and General 

Argument” above at p. 22-25 at though fully set forth right here. A substantive 

supplemental response with full production of the requested records is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

This request is both impermissibly broad and unduly burdensome because inmate 

appeals are not categorized by staff member or type of incident. Rather, they are 

maintained according to each inmate, and requiring Defendant Waddle to respond would 

force her to review the central file of every inmate housed at Kern Valley State Prison 

since 2008. Such a request would also potentially violate the privacy rights of third 

parties and seek confidential documents.

Further, Defendant Waddle incorporates by reference her response from Request 

No. 7 indicating that Bryant is seeking inadmissible character evidence.

Finally, Bryant has failed to explain with any particularity why he specifically 

needs these documents or how he would be prejudiced without them.

Ruling: Denied for the same reasons stated in RPD 9 above.

RPDs 11, 17-21, 26, 31, 32, and 34: These requests are denied for the same reasons stated in 

RPD 8. Plaintiff’s requests are entirely overbroad and seek information which is irrelevant to his claims. 

Most of the requests concern records of other inmates and correctional officers which have nothing to do 

with Plaintiff’s claims. To the extent the requests do concern Defendant Waddle and Plaintiff’s claims, 

the requests are already covered by previous requests.

IV. Interrogatories, Set No. 2

The Court next turns to Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his second set of 

interrogatories.

ROG 1: “State the full names, CDCR numbers and current mailing address and prison location 

of all CDCR inmates named on all CDCR 115 Rule Violation Reports (RVR’s) filed against inmate 

Cleave McCloud, CDCR No. J-55573 including inmate McCloud’s current mailing address and prison 

location.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. This request potentially violates the privacy rights of 

third parties. This request is also overly broad and unduly burdensome, and would require 

Defendant to examine the entire central file of inmate Cleave McCloud, which she 

currently is not in possession of. Finally, Defendant is unable to provide Plaintiff with the

mailing address of other inmates as this is in violation of Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 

3139(a), (b), which restricts an inmate’s ability to correspond with other inmates. The 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 39 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

40

Magistrate Judge has already issued findings and recommendations denying Plaintiff’s 

request to correspond with other inmates. (Doc. #63). Accordingly, no response is 

provided hereto.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

Other inmates whom McCloud may have assaulted or harmed, possibly for 

Defendant(s), is relevant to the subject matter of this case and is within the scope of 

discovery. The findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge is not an objection 

or excuse for providing this information and if the Court won’t assist Plaintiff in 

corresponding with and obtaining possibly relevant information from these inmates, 

Plaintiff will conduct depositions of the inmates who have information relevant to his 

claims. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Preliminary Statement and General

Argument” above at p. 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive 

supplemental response with full production of the requested records is necessary. The 

Court never ruled that Plaintiff is prohibited from having his agents or representative 

contact and correspond with these inmates named in the RVR’s.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

First, Bryant argues that other inmates whom inmate McCloud may have

assaulted or harmed are relevant to this case. However, Bryant’s interrogatory did not 

seek the names of inmate McCloud’s alleged victims. Rather, Bryant sought the names of 

all inmates named on all RVRs written against inmate McCloud without limitation to 

time or scope.

Even if Bryant’s request was more limited in scope (i.e. assaults), it would still be 

unduly burdensome as it would require a review of inmate McCloud’s entire central file. 

Moreover, providing the names of inmate McCloud’s alleged victims could violate their 

third party privacy rights.

Finally, Bryant contends that the Court never ruled that Bryant was prohibited 

from having his agents or representatives contact and correspond with inmates. However, 

the Magistrate’s ruling stated: “Plaintiff asks in the alternative that he be permitted to 

correspond with other inmates by mail through the Clerk of Court. Plaintiff’s proposed 

method of communication would circumvent Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3139(a), (b). 

which restricts an inmate’s ability to correspond with other inmates. Plaintiff provides no 

authority for this. The request should be denied.” Even if the Magistrate’s ruling has not 

yet been adopted by the District Court, the California Code of Regulations would prevent 

Defendant Waddle from assisting Bryant in communicating with other inmates. 

Therefore, Defendant Waddle properly objected.

Ruling: Denied. The identity and addresses of any inmate named in all CDC-115s in Inmate 

McCloud’s central file is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims and not reasonably calculated to lead to 

discoverable evidence. In addition, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3139(a) and (b) restricts an inmate’s 

ability to correspond with other inmates.

ROG 2: “Identify by full name, CDCR number and current prison location and mailing address 

of all the inmate barbers who were assigned to the barber job in Unit C3 on 6/8/10.”

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 40 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

41

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. This request potentially violates the privacy rights of 

third parties. Finally, Defendant is unable to provide Plaintiff with the mailing address of 

other inmates as this is in violation of Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3139(a), (b), which

restricts an inmate’s ability to correspond with other inmates. The Magistrate Judge has

already issued findings and recommendations denying Plaintiff’s request to correspond 

with other inmates. (Doc. #63). 

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant has 

diligently investigated this matter and has been informed that due to a change in systems 

since 2010, this information is no longer ascertainable.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

The information necessary for this response can be obtained from the “unlock” or 

“alpha roster” as it is referred to by the custody staff at K.V.S.P. for 6/8/10. Plaintiff 

incorporates by reference his “Contention re Interrogatory No. 1,” above and his 

“Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 22-25 as though fully set 

forth right here. A substantive supplemental response with full production of the 

requested records is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Defendant Waddle has already indicated that a diligent search for these records 

were done, and there are no records which provide the information which Bryant seeks. 

Moreover, even if such information could be obtained, Defendant Waddle is prohibited 

from assisting Bryant in contacting other inmates, as it is prohibited pursuant to Cal. 

Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3139(a), (b). Finally, providing Bryant with this information would 

go against the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. #63.)

Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the interrogatory stating no such records exist. In 

addition, such records would circumvent Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3139(a), (b).

ROG 3: “State the full name, (including middle names) CDCR employee I.D. number and 

current work/business address of these CDCR officials: c/o R. Romero, c/o Patrick Gallagher, c/o D. 

Sellers, c/o J. Mercado, c/o R. Hernandez, Lt. J. Stiles, Lt. P. Chanelo, Lt. Harden, Sgt. A. Sells, Sgt.

Sheldon, Sgt. I. Rivera, Capt. S. Henderson, Capt. Cano, Special Agents of OIA Gerald Biane, Ricardo 

Christensen, Jorge Luis Rodriguez, CDCR secretaries Matthew Cate and Jeffrey Beard, and wardens 

Martin D. Biter, and Kelly Harrington, c/o M. Molina and c/o Rose Stevens, who are all material 

witnesses.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. This request potentially violates the privacy rights of 

third parties. Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows:

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 41 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

42

Officer Ramon R. Romero, Officer Patrick Gallagher, Officer David C. Sellers, 

Officer Jamie Mercado , Lieutenant Pedro Chanelo, , Sergeant Angela Sell, Sergeant 

Timothy Sheldon, , Captain Stephen C. Henderson, and are employed at Kern Valley 

State Prison, which is located at 3000 West Cecil Avenue, Delano, CA 93216-6000.

Lieutenant Jason Stiles is employed at California Correctional Center, which is 

located at 711-045 Center Rd., Susanville, CA 96127-0790.

Lieutenant James P. Harden is employed as a Special Agent for CDCR, located at 

P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento CA, 94283-0001.

Sergeant Ignacio Rivera is employed at California City Correctional Facility, 

which is located at 22844 Virginia Blvd., California City, CA 93505.

Captain Xavier Cano is employed at California State Prison, Los Angeles County, 

which is located 44750 60th Street West, Lancaster, CA 93536-7620.

Special Agents of OIA Gerald Biane and Richard Christensen are located at 5016 

California Ave., Suite 210, Bakersfield, CA 93309.

Kelly L. Harrington is currently located CDCR Headquarters at P.O. Box 942883, 

Sacramento CA, 94283-0001.

Jorge Luis Rodriguez is retired and therefore Defendant does not have his current 

business address.

Matthew Cate and Jeffrey Beard no longer with CDCR and Defendant does not 

have their current business address.

Martin D. Biter is no longer the Warden at Kern Valley State Prison and 

Defendant does not know his current business address.

Defendant is unaware of which, Officer R. Hernandez , Officer Molina, or 

Officer Stevens plaintiff is referring to, and therefore is not able to provide an address.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

Waddle has failed to provide Plaintiff with the employee I.D. numbers of any of 

these prison officials, and has failed to provide any of the information requested for c/o 

Rose Stevens, M. Molina and R. Hernandez, alleging that she is unaware of which officer 

by those names Plaintiff is referring to. Waddle does in fact know which c/o Rose 

Stevens Plaintiff is referring to but does not want to provide this information because c/o 

Stevens has information on how Waddle attempted to cover up staff misconduct by c/o 

Christopher Cruse and other officers. The R. Hernandez Plaintiff refers to is the one 

Waddle supervised on second watch on facility “C” and was the patio officer there in 

2012. And the c/o M. Molina is the one who worked in unit C3 on 6/8/10 in the wait 

control booth and had to leave early and was replaced there by c/o Ramon R. Romero.

Please compel Waddle to provide supplemental responses with this information 

requested. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Preliminary Statement and General 

Argument” above at p. 22-25 as though fully set forth right here.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Bryant has failed to provide an explanation as to why he needs employee I.D.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 42 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

43

numbers for any of these prison officials. He has been provided sufficient information for 

the individuals that Defendant Waddle was able to identify.

As for Officers Hernandez, and Molina, Defendant Waddle will attempt to obtain 

their current contact information now that Bryant has provided additional information. 

Initially, Bryant’s request was vague and there were multiple officers who had worked, or 

are currently working, at Kern Valley State Prison who had the names M. Molina and R. 

Hernandez. Finally, Defendant Waddle will obtain the information for Officer Stevens. 

Initially when reviewing Bryant’s discovery response, Defendant Waddle did not see that 

Bryant had referred to Officer Steven’s first name.

Ruling: Denied. Plaintiff has failed to show how Defendant’s response was insufficient. 

Defendant has provided the known addresses of the individuals she could ascertain and stated she will 

provide the known addresses for the individuals that Plaintiff clarified in his argument. Plaintiff has not 

shown why he also needs the CDCR numbers.

ROG 4: “State the full name, first, middle and last, CDCR numbers and current prison location 

mailing address of inmate(s) witnesses: Leonard Scott #P- 66018, Louis Flores #D-56628, Rufus Levels 

#F-62510, Edward Vargas #J- 63103, Ricardo Christensen #F-56749, Steven Lopez #V-28968, Gustavo

Martinez #V-87227, Armitage #P-27971, Sorter #K-49996, Travon Willis #F-90477, Artice Brown #T76602, Marthe #H-54580, Gandy #E-83031, Robert Moore #H-23858, Jerald Cooley #62706. All are 

material witnesses.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. This request potentially violates the privacy rights of 

third parties. Further, Defendant is unable to provide Plaintiff with the mailing address of 

other inmates as this is in violation of Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3139(a), (b), which 

restricts an inmate’s ability to correspond with other inmates. The Magistrate Judge has

already issued findings and recommendations denying Plaintiff’s request to correspond 

with other inmates. (Doc. #63). Accordingly, no response is provided hereto.

Plaintiff’s Argument:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Interrogatory No. 1,” and 

his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 22-25 as though fully set 

forth right here. A substantive supplemental response with all the requested information 

is necessary.

Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As explained more fully above, Defendant Waddle is prohibited from assisting 

Bryant in contacting other inmates, as it is prohibited pursuant to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, 

§ 3139(a), (b). Further, providing Bryant with this information would go against the 

Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. #63.) Therefore, Defendant 

Waddle’s objection was proper, and Bryant’s motion to compel this response should be 

denied.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 43 of 44
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

44

Ruling: Denied. The request violates the privacy rights of third parties and circumvents Cal. 

Code Regs., title 15, § 3139(a), (b).

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses is GRANTED in part as to ROG 2, 3, 

6, and RPD 7, and DENIED in part as to the remaining requests to compel;

2) Defendant Waddle is COMPELLED to file responses to Plaintiff’s discovery 

requests within thirty (30) days as ordered herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 121 Filed 07/22/16 Page 44 of 44