Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06359/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06359-8/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

TIMOTHY JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. TURMEZEL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-03-6359 OWW DLB P

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY

RESPONSES

(Doc. 42)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action proceeding on plaintiff’s

claims against defendants Turmezei and Trott for the use of excessive force and violation of

equal protection. On February 26, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to

his request for production of documents. Defendants filed an opposition on March 12, 2007.

On March 20, 2006, plaintiff served the subject discovery on defendants. Defendants

served responses on September 28, 2006. At issue in this motion are defendants’ responses to

request numbers one though four and ten of plaintiff’s request for production of documents.

In request number one, plaintiff seeks “all RCR’s authored by you in your official

capacity on any inmate at CCI.” Defendants objected to the request as vague, overly broad and

burdensome. Defendants’ objection is sustained. The request is not limited in time nor is it

limited to a specific type of disciplinary report. Further, the documents requested must be

Case 1:03-cv-06359-OWW -DLB Document 49 Filed 09/19/07 Page 1 of 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

2

relevant to the subject matter in the pending action. The claims in this case relate to plaintiff’s 

allegations that defendants used excessive force when they peppered sprayed him and that their

actions were indicative of an increase in the use of excessive force against black inmates. 

Disciplinary reports written by defendants against other inmates at CCI have little if any

relevance to these claims. 

Request number two seeks staff complaints filed against defendants by any inmate at

CCI. While potentially relevant, this request as drafted is overly broad. Plaintiff’s request must

be narrowed to include only those complaints filed against defendants that are factually similar to

plaintiff’s allegations in the instant action. Further, plaintiff’s request must be narrowed to a

specific time period. The events giving rise to the claims against the defendants in this action

occurred in September 2002. Accordingly, the documents requested by plaintiff are limited to

the time period between September 2001 and December 2002. Defendants shall provide plaintiff

with the relevant documents requested within forty-five days from the date of service of this

order. Defendants may redact from the relevant documents any information relating to the

identities of third parties. If, after double-checking with the appropriate record keeping

departments and human resource personnel, defendants stand by their contention that this request

is burdensome, defendants shall so notify the Court within thirty days from the date of service of

this order and the Court will revisit this objection.

In response to request numbers three, four and ten, defendants asserted objections but

then responded that they were not in possession of any documents responsive to the requests. In

response to a request under Rule 34, a party is required to produce responsive documents in their

possession, custody or control. Documents that either do no exist or are not in the possession of

the responding party are not covered by the Rule 34. Plaintiff’s motion as to requests three, four

and ten is therefore denied. 

 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to requests one, three, four and ten is

denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to request number two is granted, subject

Case 1:03-cv-06359-OWW -DLB Document 49 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 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

3

to the limitations set forth in this order;

3. If defendants are able to locate documents that satisfy request number two,

defendants shall serve a response to number two within forty-five days from the

date of service of this order; and

4. In the alternative, if after double-checking with the appropriate record keeping

departments and human resource personnel, defendants stand by their contention

that this request is burdensome, defendants shall so notify the Court within thirty

days from the date of service of this order and the Court will revisit this objection.

5. If necessary, plaintiff may seek an extension of time in which to respond to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed July 17, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 13, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06359-OWW -DLB Document 49 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 3