Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01655/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01655-32/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

LOUIS BRANCH,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

D. UMPHENOUR, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:08-cv-01655-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S 

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 154.)

I. BACKGROUND

Louis Branch ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on July 7, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Third 

Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on July 10, 2013, against defendants Umphenour, 

Szalai, and Alvarez (“Defendants”) for deliberate indifference to a serious risk to Plaintiff‟s 

safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant Umphenour for retaliation 

in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 94.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 168 Filed 05/18/15 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 October 21, 2013, and February 21, 2014, the Court issued Scheduling Orders

establishing a deadline of June 21, 2014, for the parties to complete discovery, including the 

filing of motions to compel. (Docs. 109, 120.) On November 7, 2014, the Court reopened

discovery, for limited purpose, until January 30, 2015. (Doc. 151.) The discovery deadlines

have now expired.

On January 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel interrogatory responses. (Doc. 

154.) On February 19, 2015, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion to compel. (Doc. 

159.) On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. 163.) 

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel is now before the court.

II. PLAINTIFF=S ALLEGATIONS1 

At the time of the events at issue, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Avenal State Prison 

(ASP) in Avenal, California, and Defendants were employed as correctional officers at ASP.

In June 2004, Plaintiff submitted a sworn declaration that he had witnessed an inmate 

being battered and assaulted by an ASP Officer. (Third ACP, Doc. 94 at 9 ¶20.) Defendant 

Umphenour confronted Plaintiff and said he “would be „dealt with‟ for submitting „a false 

declaration against an officer.‟” (Id. at 9 ¶21.) Immediately thereafter, ASP officials caused 

Plaintiff to be transferred within the prison five times in two weeks “amid the calumny and 

obloquy that [p]laintiff was a „snitch‟ and a „baby raper.‟” (Id. at 9 ¶22.) Each of Plaintiff‟s 

verbal and written pleas resulted in Plaintiff being transferred to another facility or building. 

(Id. at 9 ¶23.) 

After Plaintiff was transferred to Building 250 he was stabbed four times, bludgeoned 

about the head, and beaten to semi-consciousness while defendants Umphenour, Szalai, and 

Alvarez watched without intervening. (Id. at 9-10 ¶25.) Plaintiff was hospitalized and then 

placed in segregation. (Id. at 10 ¶26.) 

///

///

 

1 This summary includes Plaintiff‟s allegations against defendants Umphenour, Szalai, and Alvarez in the 

Third Amended Complaint upon which this action now proceeds.

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 168 Filed 05/18/15 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

III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery 

regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(b). “Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.

With respect to interrogatories, a party may propound interrogatories related to any 

matter that may be inquired into under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(a)(2). 

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may 

move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(a)(3) (B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or 

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have 

„broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 16.‟” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 

Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). 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, No. CIV S–10–

2892 GGH P., 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02–cv–

05646–AWI–SMS (PC), 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 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; Womack v. 

Virga, No. CIV S–11–1030 MCE EFB P., 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D.Cal. Dec. 21, 2011). 

The moving party also bears the burden of demonstrating Aactual and substantial prejudice@

from the denial of discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(citations omitted).

Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigator; therefore, to the extent possible, the 

Court endeavors to resolve his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 168 Filed 05/18/15 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

F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012), Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 

635 (9th Cir. 2005), Hallett, 296 F.3d at 751.

A. Plaintiff=s Motion To Compel

Plaintiff asserts that “[i]n accordance with the court‟s extension of the discovery 

deadline to 01/30/2015, plaintiff submitted 18 Interrogatories (see Appendix J, Interrogatory 

Requests & Responses).” (Motion to Compel, Doc. 154 at 2:24-25.) Plaintiff argues that 

Defendants‟ answers to Interrogatory Requests Nos. 1 and 2 are evasive and incomplete

because Defendants “fail and refuse to identify the person who signed the General Chronos 

defendants submitted as evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact (defendants‟ alibi 

whereabouts during the attempted murder of plaintiff).” (Id. at 3:1-4.) Plaintiff argues that 

“defendants‟ answers willfully misconstrue the request for „INFORMATION‟ with „General 

Chrono‟, to evade plaintiff‟s Interrogatory Requests Nos. 7-16.” (Id. at 3:8-10.) Plaintiff also 

argues that “defendants‟ answers to Interrogatories #7 and #16, („Normally, General Chronos 

are not reported to CDCR Headquarters.‟ and „Typically a General Chrono would not be 

attached to an incident report‟) are certifiably disingenuous [because] CDCR Policy established 

in their Operations Manual §51030.4.1 requires „all‟ and „any‟ „INFORMATION‟ relating to 

an incident to be forwarded to the Central Office (Headquarters) using the AOD 837 Log 

Number (ASP FA2 04 07 0160) that is designated for plaintiff‟s incident.” (Id. at 3:14-20.). 

Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendants inappropriately invoke an attorney-client privilege as 

the reason for not providing an answer to Interrogatories #17 and #18. Plaintiff requests the 

court to compel further Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, and 7-18. 

Defendants oppose Plaintiff‟s motion on the ground that they properly responded and/or 

objected to Plaintiff‟s first set of interrogatories to Officers Szalai and Alvarez.

B. Discussion

Plaintiff has not met his burden of informing the court, for each disputed response, why 

the information sought is relevant and why the responding party's objections are not 

meritorious. Plaintiff fails to inform the court to whom he propounded the Interrogatories, and 

he has not submitted copies of the Interrogatories and Responses at issue. Plaintiff refers to 

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 168 Filed 05/18/15 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

“Appendix J, Interrogatory Requests and Responses,” but no attachments, appendices, or 

copies of the Interrogatories and Responses were submitted in support of the motion to compel. 

(Motion at 2:24-25.) The parties‟ pleadings, in themselves, do not offer sufficient information 

for the court to fairly resolve Plaintiff‟s motion to compel on the merits.2 Therefore, Plaintiff‟s 

motion to compel must be denied.

VI. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion to compel, 

filed on January 29, 2015, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2

In their opposition, Defendants identify the discovery at issue as their Responses to Plaintiff‟s 

“first set of interrogatories to Officers Szalai and Alvarez,” asserting that Plaintiff seeks the name and title of the 

third-party who signed certain General Chronos; whether the information contained in the General Chronos was 

reported to various third parties; and information pertaining to why defendants failed to inform defense counsel of 

the existence of the General Chronos. Defendants refer individually to several of the Interrogatories and 

Responses at issue; however, they have not reproduced them or submitted copies of them. 

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 168 Filed 05/18/15 Page 5 of 5