Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00702/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00702-6/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Darrel L. Smith,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0702 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

King, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, who claims

defendant King was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s safety

by releasing confidential information about plaintiff’s enemies. 

Plaintiff requests leave to examine by deposition Mark Baker, a

prisoner not a party to this action, and defendant King. 

A party may discover any matter, not privileged, that is

relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(1). Information is relevant if it would be admissible at 

trial or it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 68 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 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

2

admissible evidence. Id. 

Plaintiff would ask Mark Baker whether Baker requested

plaintiff be moved to another cell March 10, 2003; to whom Baker

submitted any such request; whether Baker is epileptic; and

whether Baker takes medication to treat epilepsy.

Plaintiff does not explain the relevance of the information

he seeks. Nothing in the record suggests information about

Baker’s health, medication or request to move to a different cell

is within the scope of discovery.

Plaintiff would ask defendant King to whom King reported

March 10, 2003, after he and other officers moved Baker from cell

105 to the medical clinic. 

Plaintiff does not explain the relevance of this

information. Nothing in the record suggests this information is

within the scope of discovery.

For these reasons, plaintiff’s June 29, 2005, motion is

denied.

So ordered.

Dated: September 8, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 68 Filed 09/08/05 Page 2 of 2