Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02216/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02216-27/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST LEE VADEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. ROBERT L. MAYES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2216 TLN CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding with a civil action against defendants Dr. 

Mayes, Dr. Kuersten, and California State Prison, Solano. Plaintiff has filed motions to compel 

further responses to plaintiff’s first and second set of requests for production of documents. 

First, defendants argue that the motions are not timely. On April 13, 2022, the court 

extended the discovery deadline to July 1, 2022, and the parties were informed that any motion to 

compel was to be filed by that date. The motions to compel were deemed filed on June 30, 2022,

when plaintiff submitted the motions for mailing. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (documents submitted by prisoners in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action such as this are 

deemed filed when the prisoner gives the document to a prison official for mailing). Accordingly, 

the motions are timely. 

However, for reasons which follow, the motions themselves and the oppositions to the 

motions are not acceptable:

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 153 Filed 02/28/23 Page 1 of 6
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

1. As with most documents filed by plaintiff, there are too many unnecessary exhibits 

attached which makes it difficult for the court to locate the exhibits that do matter such as 

defendants’ responses to the requests for production at issue. 

2. In total, plaintiff asks that the court compel further responses to 35 requests for 

production, even though plaintiff indicates he has received some 4,000 documents, with 

redactions, in discovery. ECF No. 109 at 2. A review of both of plaintiff’s motions to compel

confirms the court’s initial suspicion that many of the requests for further responses are frivolous, 

made in bad faith or both. 

For example, plaintiff asks the court to compel defendants to provide documents that 

defendants have indicated do not exist, including requests 1, 2, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 24 in the 

set two motion. In other requests for further production, such as request 1 in set one, plaintiff 

asks for documents which he had not even requested in the original request. Further, many 

requests are clearly overbroad: in request 2 of set one, for example, plaintiff seeks approximately 

3 1/2 years-worth of documents related to policy as to glucose, despite the fact that the only 

possible injury suffered by plaintiff as a result of that policy occurred over a span of one month at 

most. Similarly, in set one, request 29, plaintiff asks for the names, pictures, and prisoner 

identification numbers of inmates who lived in four different buildings over a period of 8 months, 

with no obvious relation to his claims. In other requests, such as request 10 in set one, plaintiff 

seeks documents related to persons with no discernible meaningful connection to plaintiff’s 

remaining claims. Further, defendants are not required to take pictures as plaintiff suggests in 

request 3 of set two.

3. It appears some of the requests for production in set two are somewhat duplicative of 

requests made in set one. 

4. Frequently plaintiff makes assertions in his motions to compel not applicable to the 

designated request to produce at issue. The court need go no further than request to produce 1 in 

set one in which plaintiff strays off topic discussing his discontent with redactions made by 

defendants and then seeks to expand the breadth of his original request. 

5. As for the oppositions, the numbering used by defendants in the opposition to set one 

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 153 Filed 02/28/23 Page 2 of 6
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

is confusing. For example, page four concerns request for production 5, yet the bold print above 

the language of the actual request for production reads “Request for Production 1.” This happens 

repeatedly throughout the opposition (i.e. pages 7, 13-18). 

6. In the oppositions to both motions for further production, defendants assert numerous 

objections, some of which appear to be boilerplate, inappropriate, and / or unsupported by federal 

law. For example, in the response to request to produce 1 in set one, defendants claim the request 

is unduly burdensome without explanation. Defendants assert some documents are “potentially 

privileged” which is not an appropriate basis at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) (any claim of 

privilege must be made expressly and must include a description of the nature of the documents 

allegedly privileged). Additionally, defendants assert privileges arising under state law which are 

not applicable in federal court. Further, in the response to the motion to compel a further 

response to request 1, defendants claim that they “justifiably refused to provide health care 

grievances filed by non-party inmates” without identifying the justification. The court presumes 

that defendants are alluding to state and possibly federal privacy laws concerning medical 

records, but is not clear.

7. Defendants are sometimes not clear whether all documents were produced or whether 

some were held back (for example, request to produce 3 in set one). 

8. In response to plaintiff’s motion to compel as to request 4 in set one, defendants 

indicated they would look for more documents. This is not appropriate. What would be 

appropriate is to search for more documents then indicate in the opposition to the motion to 

compel whether more documents were found and produced. 

9. Defendants are, at times, evasive. For example, with respect to set one request 12 

defendants assert that the word “memoranda” is vague even though it is sufficiently clear within 

the context of the request to produce. Similarly, “all investigative notes” as it appears in request 

5 in set two is neither vague nor ambiguous. 

10. Defendants also object on the basis of undue burden and overbreadth numerous times. 

While the briefing at least suggests that these objections are possibly appropriate, at most times 

defendants do not provide enough detail upon which the court can make such a finding. 

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 153 Filed 02/28/23 Page 3 of 6
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

In sum, both motions to compel, and the oppositions thereto are unacceptable, and the 

court will not waste judicial resources attempting to unscramble the filings. Both motions to 

compel will be denied without prejudice. The court will permit the parties 30 days within which 

to meet and confer as to a resolution of the issues raised in plaintiff’s motions to compel. If at the 

end of the meet and confer period, plaintiff is still not satisfied as to the responses to his requests 

for production, plaintiff will be permitted to file a motion to compel. If plaintiff elects to file 

another motion to compel, he must adhere to the following:

1. The motions cannot exceed the scope of the motions already presented.

2. Plaintiff must submit the challenged responses, and if defendants’ position has changed 

concerning an initial response, plaintiff must so indicate and describe the new position. Plaintiff 

must refrain from filing any other unnecessary exhibits. 

3. Plaintiff is informed that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) the 

appropriate scope of discovery is as follows:

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. Information 

within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to 

be discoverable.

4. Any request for further production cannot be frivolous or made in bad faith as 

described above.

5. Any request for further production cannot be duplicative of another request for further 

production.

6. Any request for further production must be concise and shall not contain information 

irrelevant to the request. 

In any opposition, defendants must adhere to the following:

1. Defendants must correct the numbering issues which appear in the opposition to the 

motion to compel concerning requests for production set one.

2. Defendants shall not assert any objection unless the request to produce is obviously 

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 153 Filed 02/28/23 Page 4 of 6
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

objectionable for the stated reason, or defendants support the objection with facts and applicable 

federal law.

3. Defendants shall assert only those privileges that arise under federal law.

4. If defendants have turned over all documents responsive to a particular request they 

shall so state (as opposed to indicating that some documents were turned over while being vague 

as to whether there are any more documents).

5. If defendants fail to turn over any documents which are clearly within the scope of 

discovery as described above and clarified by federal case law, and are not privileged under 

federal law, monetary sanctions will issue.

Both parties are reminded or their responsibilities under Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure.

1

 Also, with respect to discovery in particular, by submitting any request for 

discovery or response thereto, the party certifies that the request or response is “not interposed for 

any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost 

of litigation,” and is “neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the 

needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of 

the issues at stake in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g). Any violation of these rules will be met 

with sanctions which, for the plaintiff, might include dismissal of this action. 

1 (b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other 

paper--whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney or unrepresented 

party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an 

inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause 

unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a 

nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for 

establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will 

likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so 

identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 153 Filed 02/28/23 Page 5 of 6
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

Finally, the court notes that defendants’ motion for summary judgment is pending.

Considering the foregoing, the motion for summary judgment will be denied without prejudice to 

renewal at an appropriate time to be determined by the court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to provide further responses to plaintiff’s first 

set of requests for production of documents (ECF No. 109) and plaintiff’s motion to compel 

defendants to provide further responses to plaintiff’s second set of requests for production of 

documents (ECF No. 113) are denied without prejudice.

2. The parties are granted 30 days within which to meet and confer as to the issues raised 

in plaintiff’s motions to compel.

3. Plaintiff is granted 60 days within which to file motions to compel concerning 

defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents and/or 

defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s second set of requests for production of documents in 

accordance with the terms identified in this order. In addition to those terms, any motion to 

compel must include a certification that the meet and confer requirement described above was 

met. Defendants may file an opposition to any motion to compel within 30 days of service of the 

motion and the opposition must be in accordance with the terms identified herein. Plaintiff may 

file a reply brief within 30 days of service of an opposition. 

4. In all other respects, discovery is closed.

5. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 138) is denied without prejudice. 

Defendants will be informed as to the time and procedure for renewal when appropriate.

Dated: February 27, 2023

1

vade2216.mtc(5)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 153 Filed 02/28/23 Page 6 of 6