Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01675/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01675-17/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Barry Lee Brookins is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed February 10, 2020. 

I.

RELEVANT HISTORY

This action is proceeding against Defendants Officer M. Hernandez and E. Williams for cruel 

and unusual punishment.

Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on December 19, 2018.

After an unsuccessful settlement conference, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling 

order on March 6, 2019. (ECF No. 37.) 

BARRY LEE BROOKINS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:17-cv-01675-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

[ECF No. 55]

Case 1:17-cv-01675-AWI-SAB Document 59 Filed 02/27/20 Page 1 of 5
2

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

On May 16, 2019, the Court granted Defendants request to modify the scheduling order and 

extended the time to file an exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment to July 9, 2019. (ECF 

No. 41.) 

On July 9, 2019, Defendants filed an exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment. (ECF 

No. 42.) 

On August 30, 2019, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending 

that Defendants’ exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment be granted, and Defendants A. 

Williams, Gelvezon, Sanchez, Crane, Scheesley, and Marsh be dismissed, without prejudice, for 

failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. (ECF No. 46.) 

On December 16, 2019, the Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full and 

Defendants A. Williams, Gelvezon, Sanchez, Crane, Scheesley, and Marsh were dismissed from the 

action, without prejudice. (ECF No. 48.) 

On January 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s December 16, 

2019 order, which is pending review before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii. (ECF No. 52.) 

As previously stated, on February 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel. (ECF 

No. 55.) Defendants filed an opposition on February 26, 2020. Although the time for Plaintiff to file 

a reply has not expired, the Court finds the motion suitable for review without a reply. Local Rule 

230(l). 

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a civil detainee challenging his conditions of confinement. 

As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would otherwise apply, 

including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to involving the Court in 

a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 

240, 251; ECF No. 37, Discovery and Scheduling Order, ¶ 4. Further, where otherwise discoverable 

information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or infringe upon a protected 

privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in determining whether disclosure 

should occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) 

Case 1:17-cv-01675-AWI-SAB Document 59 Filed 02/27/20 Page 2 of 5
3

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

(privacy rights or interests implicit in broad purpose and language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa 

Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(discussing assertion of privilege); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) 

(recognizing a constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia 

v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB PC, 2012 WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) 

(noting inmate=s entitlement to inspect discoverable information may be accommodated in ways which 

mitigate institutional safety concerns); Robinson v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 

WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012) (issuing protective order regarding documents containing 

information which implicated the safety and security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. CV-08-0472-

JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for protective order and 

for redaction of information asserted to risk jeopardizing safety and security of inmates or the institution 

if released); Womack v. Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. 

Dec. 21, 2011) (requiring defendants to submit withheld documents for in camera review or move for a 

protective order). 

However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The 

discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of discovery 

responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th 

Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any 

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the 

case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery 

in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit.” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

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. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV 

S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at 

*3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis v. 

Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This 

Case 1:17-cv-01675-AWI-SAB Document 59 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 5
4

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

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; Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, 

at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4. However, the Court is vested 

with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to 

leniency as a pro se litigant; therefore, to the extent possible, the Court endeavors to resolve his 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). 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is Defective and Untimely

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to respond to his first set of document requests. (ECF 

No. 55 at 1, 4-5.) However, Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants with his request of production of 

documents. Indeed, the proof of service indicates that he only served his request for production of 

documents on the United States District Court, not on Defendants. (Id. at 6.) Defendants submit that 

they only became aware of Plaintiff’s document requests after they reviewed the electronically-filed 

copy of Plaintiff’s instant motion to compel which attached a copy of the document requests as an 

exhibit. (Declaration of Brian S. Chan (Chan Decl.) ¶ 2, ECF No. 58-1.) 

Furthermore, even if Plaintiff had served Defendants with his discovery requests, the request is 

untimely and an objection thereto would have been raised. (Chan Decl. ¶ 5.) Pursuant to the Court’s 

discovery and scheduling order, the deadline for completion of all discovery including motions to 

compel expired on November 6, 2019. (ECF No. 37.). Plaintiff’s discovery requests are dated 

January 15, 2020, over two months after the discovery deadline expired. (ECF No. 55 at 6.) As stated 

in the Court’s discovery and scheduling order, “discovery requests ... must be served sufficiently in 

advance of the discovery deadline to permit time for a response and time to prepare and file a motion 

to compel.” (ECF No. 37 at 2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff did not timely file a motion to compel or timely 

serve Defendants with his discovery request and the instant motion must be denied. 

Case 1:17-cv-01675-AWI-SAB Document 59 Filed 02/27/20 Page 4 of 5
5

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

B. Plaintiff’s Request for Deposition Transcript is Defective

In his motion, Plaintiff also requests a copy of the transcript from his November 5, 2019

deposition. (ECF No. 55 at 1.) 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, a party may obtain a copy of the deposition 

transcript upon reasonable payment of fees, and Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not entitle 

him to a free copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3); see also Vanderbusch v. Chokatos, No. 1:13-cv-01422-

LJO-EPG, 2018 WL 3031488, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2018) (denying plaintiff’s request for court to 

order defendants provide him copy of deposition transcript) (citing Boston v. Garcia, No. 2:10-cv01782 KJM DAD, 2013 WL 1165062, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013) (same)). In addition, a plaintiff 

cannot obtain a copy of his deposition transcript free of chare by way of request for production. See, 

e.g., Joseph v. Parciasepe, No. 2:14-cv-0414 GEB AC P, 2016 WL 2743448, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 

2016) (denying motion to compel production of a free copy of deposition transcript). A plaintiff must 

obtain deposition transcripts from the officer before whom the deposition was taken—a court reporter 

or deposition officer. See Claiborne v. Battery, No. CIV S-06-2919 FCD EFB P, 2009 WL 530352, at 

*3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2009) (denying plaintiff’s request for a court order directing the defendant to 

provide him with a copy of his deposition transcript). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a free copy 

of the deposition transcript is denied as both procedurally and substantively defective. 

IV.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel a 

response to his discovery requests and a free copy of the deposition transcript is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01675-AWI-SAB Document 59 Filed 02/27/20 Page 5 of 5