Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01604/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01604-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KING SOLOMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAPIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-1604-KES-HBK (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

(Doc. No. 37)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. No. 39)

Pending before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff King Solomon. The first is a

Motion to Compel Discovery filed on October 31, 2024. (Doc. No. 37). Defendants timely filed 

an Opposition on November 19, 2024. (Doc. No. 38). Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Extension of Time filed November 21, 2024. (Doc. No. 39). Plaintiff is a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his First Amended Complaint against Defendant

Tapia. (Doc. Nos. 19, 20). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants in part Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Compel but denies his Motion for Extension of Time.

MOTION TO COMPEL

In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling disclosure of “all reports of 

the incedent [sic] on 2 July 2021.” (Doc. No. 37 at 1). Defendant infers that Plaintiff objects to 

Defendant’s response to his Request for Production No. 2 and seeks to compel disclosure of the 

Case 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK Document 40 Filed 12/04/24 Page 1 of 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

2

Adult Information Management Systems (AIMS) Inquiry Report that was prepared regarding the 

July 2, 2021 incident. (Doc. No. 38 at 1-2). Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion “should be 

denied because Defendant provided Plaintiff with all responsive, non-confidential, and nonprivileged documents in his possession [and that] Defendant . . . appropriately objected to 

Plaintiff’s requests, provided a privilege log, and a declaration in support of the privilege log.” 

(Id. at 1). Further, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s Motion is facially deficient as it does not 

include Plaintiff’s relevant discovery request(s), Defendant’s response(s), or specify which, if 

any, of Defendants’ responses were inadequate and why. (Id.). To the extent the Court finds that 

the AIMS Report should be produced, Defendant offers to produce it in both unredacted and 

proposed redacted form for in camera review. (Id. at 2).

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides:

parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged 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). Although broad, “the scope of discovery is not without limits.” 

Compass Bank v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1040, 1051 (S.D. Cal. 

2015). The Court “must limit” irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome, cumulative or 

disproportional discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Whether to permit or deny discovery is 

left to the Court’s “broad” discretion. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

A party may request documents “in the responding party’s possession, custody, or 

control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). The responding party must respond in writing and is obliged 

to produce all specified relevant and non-privileged documents, tangible things, or electronically 

stored information in its “possession, custody, or control” on the date specified. Id. If a party 

“fails to respond” as requested under Rule 34, the propounding party may file a motion to compel 

production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). An “incomplete disclosure, answer, or 

Case 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK Document 40 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 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

3

response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). 

“The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating ‘actual and substantial prejudice’ from the 

denial of discovery.” Hasan v. Johnson, 2012 WL 569370 *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012) (citing 

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

The Ninth Circuit recognizes a qualified privilege for official information. Kerr v. U.S. 

Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). 

However, “common law governmental privilege (encompassing and referred to sometimes as the 

official or state secret privilege) . . . is only a qualified privilege, contingent upon the competing 

interests of the requesting litigant and subject to disclosure. . ..” Id. at 198 (internal citations 

omitted). Thus, a “court must balance the government’s interest in protecting official information 

from disclosure against the plaintiff’s need for the information.” Edwards v. Cnty. of L.A., 2009 

WL 4707996, at *2–3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2009). This balancing test is “moderately pre-weighted 

in favor of disclosure” in civil rights cases. Kelly v. San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (N.D. Cal. 

1987).

When the official information privilege is invoked to prevent disclosure of government 

records, courts should conduct an in camera review to determine whether the privileged 

documents relevancy compels their disclosure. See, e.g., Seminara v. City of Long Beach, 68 

F.3d 481 (9th Cir. 1995); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033–34 (9th Cir. 1990), 

as amended on denial of reh'g (Feb. 27, 1991), as amended on denial of reh'g (May 24, 1991) 

(internal citations omitted) (“Government personnel files are considered official information. To 

determine whether the information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits 

of disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the privilege bars 

discovery.”). In the past, this Court has compelled the disclosure of documents after either an in 

camera review and redaction or subject to a protective order despite the invocation of official 

information privilege. See, e.g., Caruso v. Solorio, No. 1:15-CV-00780-AWI-EPG, 2018 WL 

2254365, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2018); Noble v. City of Fresno, No. 116-CV-01690-DADBAM, 2017 WL 5665850, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2017).

////

Case 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK Document 40 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 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

4

B. Analysis

As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s Motion is facially 

deficient. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules of this Court, a party must 

confer or attempt to confer with the opposing party to resolve a discovery dispute before filing a 

motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); see Local Rule 251(b); see also Doc. No. 33 at 2 

(apprising the parties of the meet and confer requirement). Plaintiff does not provide any 

certification in his Motion that he attempted to comply with the meet and confer mandate. (See 

generally Doc. No. 37). Plaintiff’s Motion also fails to specify which discovery requests are the 

subject of the motion to compel, which responses are disputed, why the defendant’s responses are 

deficient, why Defendants’ objections are not justified, and why the information sought is 

relevant to the prosecution of the action, as required to demonstrate actual prejudice from the 

non-disclosure. See Christ v. Blackwell, 2011 WL 3847165, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011); 

Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL 860523 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is 

facially deficient, and the Court may deny it on that basis alone. Nonetheless, given Plaintiff’s 

pro se status and in order to expedite the discovery in this matter, the Court will turn to the merits 

of the Motion. 

Defendant does not deny that the AIMS report is potentially relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. 

And considering the Defendant’s discovery response, which invokes the official information 

privilege, the Court finds it appropriate to review the AIMS Inquiry Report to determine whether 

it contains sufficiently relevant information to warrant disclosure despite the government’s 

interest in confidentiality. This Court has routinely compelled the disclosure of documents 

despite the invocation of official information privilege. See, e.g., Caruso v. Solorio, 2018 WL 

2254365, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2018); Noble v. City of Fresno, 2017 WL 5665850, at *8 (E.D. 

Cal. Nov. 27, 2017). The Court will therefore direct Defendants to submit the unredacted report 

for in camera review, along with the privilege log and a proposed redacted version of the report. 

If the Court finds that disclosure is warranted, it will do so subject to appropriate redactions. 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

In his second motion, Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to an unspecified deadline. 

Case 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK Document 40 Filed 12/04/24 Page 4 of 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

5

Because Plaintiff is not currently under any court-ordered deadline, the Court cannot reasonably 

infer on what basis Plaintiff seeks an extension of time and will therefore deny the Motion.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. No. 37) is GRANTED IN PART, as 

set forth herein. 

2. Within seven (7) days of service of this Order, Defendants shall submit the AIMS 

Confidential Inquiry Report and related exhibits for in camera review to the Chambers 

email address (caeddb_orders-hbk@caed.uscourts.gov). 

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. No. 39) is DENIED.

Dated: December 4, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK Document 40 Filed 12/04/24 Page 5 of 5