Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01021/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01021-21/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

ROBERT COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1021 JAM KJN P

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. This action proceeds on 

plaintiff’s challenge to the modified program or changes to the modified program implemented on 

April 16, 2012, or on July 9, 2012, including his claim that the “practice of a race based lockdown 

end,” (ECF No. 45-7 at 24), as well as his alleged deprivation of visits and phone calls (ECF No. 

25 at 19-20), against defendants Virga and DeRoco.

1

 (ECF Nos. 67 at 23-27; 29; 77.) Plaintiff 

filed a motion for sanctions, to extend discovery, and to obtain an order for preliminary injunctive 

relief. However, because defendants responded to plaintiff’s discovery requests, the undersigned 

construed plaintiff’s motion as a motion to compel discovery and for sanctions, and denied the 

 

1

 The undersigned also found that “whether plaintiff’s administrative challenge to the policy, 

custom or practice of race based lockdowns includes a challenge to the December 7, 2011 

lockdown remains a disputed issue of material fact.” (ECF No. 67 at 24.)

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 19
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

motion for injunctive relief without prejudice. (ECF No. 93.) Defendants filed an opposition to 

the motion, and plaintiff filed a reply.2 On September 9, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for in 

camera review of documents responsive to his request for production of documents nos. 5 and 6. 

On October 3, 2016, defendants filed an opposition. 

II. Motion to Compel

A. Standards

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. Cnty. 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)). 

Plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery requests are the 

subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are disputed, (3) why he believes the 

response is deficient, (4) why defendants’ objections are not justified, and (5) why the 

information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. McCoy v. 

Ramirez, 2016 WL 3196738 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 

(E.D. Cal. 2008) (“Plaintiff must inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of his 

motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the court why the information sought 

is relevant and why defendant’s objections are not justified.”). The reach of Rule 34 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs requests for production, “extends to all relevant 

documents, tangible things and entry upon designated land or other property.” Clark v. Vega 

Wholesale Inc., 181 F.R.D. 470, 472-73 (D. Nev. 1998), citing 8A C. Wright & A. Miller, 

Federal Practice and Procedure § 2206, at 381. 

 

2

 Plaintiff’s reply was signed on August 3, 2016, the day after the court issued its order requiring 

defendants to address the status of plaintiff’s legal materials and his ability to attend the law 

library. 

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 19
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

The purpose of discovery is to “remove surprise from trial preparation so the parties can 

obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute.” U.S. ex rel. O'Connell v. 

Chapman University, 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). 

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers guidance on the scope of discovery 

permitted: 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 

information 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.

“Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly.” Garneau v. City of Seattle, 147 

F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of 

establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the 

party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and 

the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 

1390794 at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (internal citation omitted).

B. Discussion

Defendants are correct that plaintiff failed to provide copies of the disputed discovery 

requests and the responses. Plaintiff responds that he could not provide copies of these items 

because of difficulties he experienced at the Short Term Restricted Housing (“STRH”) law library 

and with the librarian at California State prison, Sacramento (“CSP-SAC”). (ECF No. 103 at 3.) 

Plaintiff contends that he had to retain his original and could not mail out the only copy of such 

material to the court. 

However, plaintiff’s arguments that the prison law library limits the number of copies, or 

that he had difficulty obtaining such copies, are unavailing because plaintiff may handwrite 

copies of the requests and responses, particularly where it appears he is only challenging six 

specific discovery requests. The court could deny plaintiff’s motion on such basis alone. See,

e.g., Nelson v. Runnels, 2009 WL 211052, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2009) (motions to compel 

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 19
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

denied without prejudice based on prisoner’s failure to provide discovery requests and responses), 

report and recommendation adopted, 2009 WL 728495 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2009) 

On the other hand, the court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery, and 

notwithstanding the discovery procedures set forth above, plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro 

se litigator; therefore, to the extent possible, the court addresses plaintiff’s motion to compel on 

its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. 

Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 

(9th Cir. 2002).

1. Interrogatory No. 1 to Defendant Virga

Interrogatory No. 1

[1.1] Back in 2011, did C-Facility Administration carry-out a 

‘special committee’ that resulted in approximately 50 to 100 

African-American inmates being transferred in exchange of 

Hispanic inmates? [1.2] If so, why? [1.3] And what month did the 

Hispanic inmates arrive at SAC C-Facility?

Response to Interrogatory No. 1

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is 

compound, and is vague as to time and the phrase “carry-out a 

‘special committee’.” The interrogatory also seeks information that 

is deemed confidential under California Code of Regulations, title 

15, § 3321, the disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the safety 

of other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the 

security of the institution. Additionally, the production of 

confidential information is improper on the grounds that an inmate 

shall not have access to information designated confidential. Cal. 

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). Defendant further objects that this 

interrogatory seeks information not relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that 

Defendant was responsible for CSP-SAC’s practice of placing him 

on modified programs based on his race or to a defense at issue in 

this lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

(ECF No. 99 at 3-4.)

Specifically, plaintiff contends that despite Virga’s objection that the information is 

confidential, plaintiff maintains that it is not confidential, and is relevant to his instant claims. 

Plaintiff argues that the transfer of African-American inmates for Hispanic inmates created an 

unsafe environment that led to the December 7, 2011 riot. (ECF No. 91 at 4.) 

////

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 4 of 19
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

Defendants claim the objection was proper because the interrogatory seeks confidential 

information regarding CSP-SAC’s prison operations and the basis for confidential decisions made 

in managing the inmate population. Defendants argue that plaintiff fails to show the objection 

was not justified, and offers nothing to support his view. Moreover, defendants contend that 

plaintiff’s opinion that by transferring African-Americans for Hispanics created the unsafe 

environment that led to the December 7, 2011 riot, is a fishing expedition to expand plaintiff’s 

claims to a conditions of confinement claim, beyond plaintiff’s claims that defendants placed him 

on race-based modified programs. Defendants argue that this interrogatory seeks confidential 

information that is irrelevant to plaintiff’s equal protection claims, and would jeopardize the 

safety and security of inmates, staff, and the institution. 

Plaintiff replies that defendant Virga’s confidentiality objection is deficient because it fails 

to explain how or why the alleged “confidential information” would jeopardize such security. 

Plaintiff maintains that a simple yes or no answer would have been sufficient. (ECF No. 103 at 

5.) Plaintiff states that he would not seek the reason if the answer to the interrogatory is yes, but 

that defendant should be required to provide either a yes or no response. (ECF No. 103 at 6.) 

Plaintiff argues that this should also be extended to the day, month, and year the Southern 

Hispanics arrived at Facility C of CSP-SAC because such information would not jeopardize 

security. 

In this interrogatory, plaintiff seeks to obtain answers in order to prove a theory that 

prison staff conspired to arrange fights between certain categories of inmates in order to place 

only African-Americans on lock down. However, this action proceeds on plaintiff’s equal 

protection claim that in response to riots at CSP-SAC, defendants improperly locked him down, 

despite plaintiff not being involved in the riot, and subjected him to race-based restrictions that 

were discriminatory and excessive, and constituted punishment, during the initial lockdown and 

subsequent modified programming. Plaintiff’s efforts to broaden the scope of his claims through 

discovery are inappropriate and unavailing. Such discovery request is not relevant to the instant 

claims in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 5 of 19
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

Thus, the court finds that defendant Virga’s objections are well-taken, and plaintiff’s 

motion to compel further response to interrogatory no. 1 is denied. 

2. Interrogatory No. 2 to Defendant Virga

Interrogatory No. 2

Before the December 7, 2011 melee took place between AfricanAmerican, Southern Hispanic and Mexican National inmates, when 

was the last time on C-Facility these said-above inmates had 

engaged in such violental [sic] acts between one of another?

Response to Interrogatory No. 2

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is unduly 

burdensome, is vague as to time, the word “melee,” and the phrase 

“these said-above inmates had engaged in such violental [sic] acts 

between one of another?” The interrogatory also seeks information 

that is deemed confidential under California Code of Regulations, 

title 15, § 3321, the disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the 

safety of other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the 

security of the institution. Additionally, the production of 

confidential information is improper on the grounds that an inmate 

shall not have access to information designated confidential. Cal. 

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d).

Defendant further objects that this interrogatory seeks information 

not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims that on December 7, 2011 and 

April 16, 2012, Plaintiff was placed on a race-based modified 

program in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights or any 

defense at issue in this lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1).

(ECF No. 99 at 5.)

Plaintiff objects to defendant Virga’s response to interrogatory no. 2 on the same grounds

as no. 1. Plaintiff also cites to the grievance, reviewed by Virga, in which Virga states that the 

modified program was “based on the [history] of racial incidents between Black and Hispanic 

inmates within Facility C.” (ECF No. 91 at 5.) Plaintiff contends that no such history of violence 

between such inmates existed for over a decade. (Id.) 

Defendants contend that plaintiff failed to address defendants’ objections, including the 

issues of confidentiality and relevance. Defendants argue that the objections are proper because 

the request seeks confidential information regarding CSP-SAC’s determination regarding which 

inmates and/or groups of inmates were involved in prison disturbances, and the request was 

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 6 of 19
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

7

unduly burdensome and vague as to time, because it does not clearly identify the nature of the 

violent act (using “melee”), and is not limited in time. (ECF No. 99 at 5.) Similarly, the request 

does not make clear whether plaintiff sought information about acts of violence between all three 

groups of inmates or some combination of them, and whether such acts of violence led to a 

modified program or lockdown. Further, defendants contend that plaintiff’s argument that he is 

entitled to all memorandums related to such violent acts is unavailing because the discovery 

request was phrased as an interrogatory, not a request for production of documents.

Plaintiff argues that in response to interrogatory number 2, defendant Virga should 

provide the day, month and year inmates involved in the December 7, 2011 riot had engaged in an 

earlier riot because such information would not jeopardize any security or be burdensome. (ECF 

No. 103 at 6.) Plaintiff contends that he does not seek to receive discovery as to every single 

violent act committed by such inmates, but only the last riot between African-American inmates 

against any Southern Hispanic or Mexican National inmates that occurred prior to December 7, 

2011, at Facility C of CSP-SAC. (ECF No. 103 at 7.) Plaintiff argues that CSP-SAC’s officials 

alleged that the modified program was implemented because of the “violent [history] between 

inmates involved in the December 7, 2011 and April 16, 2012 riots at Facility C.” (ECF No. 103 

at 7.) Plaintiff disputes that he seeks “any type of violent acts,” just the last riot before December 

7, 2011, involving such inmates. (Id.) 

First, plaintiff is advised that he cannot alter discovery requests after they are propounded, 

and he may not seek documents through interrogatories. Second, the court agrees that 

interrogatory no. 2 is not ideally worded, but given that the modified program at issue here was 

implemented because of the allegedly violent history between the inmates involved, a narrowly 

crafted interrogatory would lead to admissible evidence herein. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to 

compel is partially granted; defendant Virga shall provide a response to the interrogatory as 

narrowed by plaintiff: “Defendant Virga shall identify the day, month, and year of the last riot 

between African-American inmates against any Southern Hispanic or Mexican National inmates 

that occurred before December 7, 2011, at Facility C of CSP-SAC.” 

////

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 7 of 19
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

8

3. Interrogatory No. 3 to Defendant Virga

Interrogatory No. 3

[3.1] “In regards to the December 7, 2011 melee, was there ever an 

"threat risk assessment" process conducted by C-Facility’s 

Administration to release [any] none-threatening [sic] inmates from 

the lockdown/modified program? [3.2] If so, can you explain what 

measures were made to effectuate such process? [3.3] And how 

many inmates were released? [3.4] This is African-Americans?”

Response to Interrogatory No. 3

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is 

compound, vague as to the word “melee,” and the phrases “’threat 

risk assessment’ process,” “release [any] none-threatening 

inmates,” and “effectuate such process.” Defendant further objects 

on the grounds the interrogatory it is argumentative and is 

unintelligible as posed. The interrogatory also seeks information 

that is deemed confidential under California Code of Regulations, 

title 15, § 3321, the disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the 

safety of other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the 

security of the institution. Additionally, the production of 

confidential information is improper on the grounds that an inmate 

shall not have access to information designated confidential. Cal. 

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d).

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds: 

[3.1] - The December 7, 2011 riot on C-Facility’s main recreation 

yard involved approximately 200 Black and Southern 

Hispanic/Mexican National inmates. This incident was of such 

magnitude, all C-Facility Level IV inmates were placed on 

modified program. Investigations into disturbances of this 

magnitude, are lengthy and time-consuming and because each 

disturbance is unique, there is not a set formula regarding returning 

the facility to regular programming. Individual risk assessments are 

performed as part of the process of returning inmates to regular 

programming. The procedures used and the information received 

from performing those individual risk assessments is confidential, 

however, because it involves performing inmate interviews and 

central file reviews of all the inmates impacted by the modified 

programs. 

[3.2] - As the investigation into the reasons for the modified 

program continues, if possible, there is a gradual and incremental 

return to normal programming for the inmates impacted by a 

modified program. 

[3.3] – [3.4] - All African-American inmates impacted by the 

modified program that began as a result of the December 7, 2011 

riot were incrementally returned to regular program on April 16, 

2012. 

(ECF No. 99 at 6.)

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 8 of 19
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

9

Plaintiff contends that his interrogatory no. 3, which defendant Virga refused to answer on 

confidentiality grounds, asked whether a “threat risk assessment” had been made and, if so, what 

measures were taken, and how many inmates were actually returned to normal program as a result 

of such procedure. Plaintiff cites to a 2010 modified program where 113 Black inmates were 

returned to normal program, despite an attempted murder of an African-American inmate by a 

Northern Hispanic inmate. Plaintiff maintains such information is not confidential.

Defendants argue that defendant fully responded to the interrogatory, despite the lodged 

objection. Plaintiff did not address this interrogatory in his reply.

The undersigned finds that defendant responded to the interrogatory by confirming that 

individual risk assessments were performed, and that African-American inmates “were 

incrementally returned to regular program on April 16, 2012.” (ECF No. 99 at 6.) Thus, 

plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to interrogatory no. 3 is denied.

4. Request for Production of Documents

With regard to plaintiff’s request for production of documents, plaintiff seeks to compel 

responses to requests 4, 5 and 6. Defendants counter that plaintiff’s motion fails to address each 

request, except for request no. 6, does not identify how defendants’ objections are improper or the 

responses are inadequate, and that his rambling arguments make it difficult to determine what 

documents he seeks. Defendants provided plaintiff 85 pages of discovery in response to his 

requests for production. (ECF No. 99 at 9.) 

a. Request for Production No. 4

I request the permission to view the December 7, 2011 and April 

16, 2012 video of the C-Facility’s melee’s.

Response to Request for Production No. 4

Defendants object to this request on the grounds it is compound. 

Further, this request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery 

because reviewing video of the riots that occurred on the C-Facility 

main yard is not relevant to any claim or defense at issue in this 

lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The request also seeks 

information that is deemed confidential under California Code of 

Regulations, Title 15, section 3321, the disclosure of which could: 

(1) endanger the safety of other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or 

(2) jeopardize the security of the institution. Additionally, the 

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 9 of 19
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

10

production of confidential information is improper on the grounds 

that an inmate shall not have access to information designated 

confidential. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). Defendants 

therefore do not respond to this request.

(ECF No. 99 at 7-8.)

Defendants contend that the objections are proper; the videos are not relevant to plaintiff’s 

claims that he was placed on race-based modified programs, and these videos are considered 

confidential under California’s prison regulations. 

In reply, plaintiff argues that defendant Virga refuses to provide plaintiff with pertinent 

documents or to allow him to review the December 7, 2011 and April 16, 2011 videotapes of the 

riots. Plaintiff contends that such videos are relevant and will lead to admissible information, 

such as how the riot began. For example, plaintiff argues that either video may show that the 

initial dispute which led to both riots began between the Kumi/Bay Area and Southern Hispanics. 

(ECF No. 103 at 8.) Such videos may show that the dispute was only between the Kumi/Bay 

Area, Southern Hispanics and Mexican National inmates, and not involving non-affiliates, Crip 

and Blood disruptive group members, yet prison officials still decided to place all AfricanAmerican inmates on lock down. In addition, plaintiff argues that the April 16, 2012 video may 

also show that once the administration decided to release all inmates housed in building 5, 

including Crips and Bloods, only Kumi/Bay area Southern Hispanics and Mexican National 

inmates had participated in the riot on the big side yard, which would prove that prison officials 

knew who the quarrel was between. (ECF No. 103 at 9.)

The melees or riots are relevant because they prompted the lockdowns or modified 

programs at issue here and therefore are likely to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s equal 

protection claims are focused on whether plaintiff was wrongfully placed on race-based modified 

programs, and viewing the videos may reveal the extent of the involvement of African-American 

inmates. Defendants fail to explain how plaintiff viewing the December 7, 2011 and April 16, 

2011 videotapes would endanger other inmates or staff or jeopardize the security of the 

institution. Indeed, any inmate on the yard during such riots or melees had the opportunity to 

personally view prison staff’s reactions. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted as to request no. 

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 10 of 19
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

11

4. Defendants shall make arrangements for plaintiff to take notes while viewing the videos, and 

ensure plaintiff has adequate time to review them.

b. Request for Production No. 5

I request to obtain all incident reports and memorandums pertaining 

to the December 7, 2011 and April 16, 2012 melee that occurred on 

C-Facility.

Response to Request for Production No. 5

Defendants object to this request on the grounds it is compound, 

overbroad and vague as to time and the phrases “any and all 

memorandums” and “engaging in a ‘race-riot.’ The request also 

seeks information that is deemed confidential under California 

Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3321, the disclosure of which 

could: (1) endanger the safety of other inmates and staff of the 

CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security of the institution. 

Additionally, the production of confidential information is improper 

on the grounds that an inmate shall not have access to information 

designated confidential. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d).

Defendants further object that such materials are subject to the 

official information privilege under California Evidence Code 

sections 1040 et seq. A privilege log and declaration supporting 

this assertion of privilege is served upon Plaintiff concurrently with 

this response.

Without waiving objections, Defendant responds as follows:

1. CDCR 3022B–Program Status Reports, Part B, SAC-C-11-018, 

and Memoranda related to SAC-C-11-018, Attachment 1.

2. CDCR 3022B–Program Status Reports, Part B, SAC-C-12-002, 

and Memoranda related to SAC-C-12-002, Attachment 2.

(ECF No. 99 at 8-9.)

Plaintiff argues that the incident reports are not confidential because a copy of each 

incident report is provided to each inmate charged with a rules violation. (ECF No. 91 at 10.) 

Defendants contend that plaintiff’s use of the term “incident report” is unclear, but that 

plaintiff was not involved in either riot. Defendants maintain that they properly asserted that the 

documents sought are confidential, and provided a privilege log and a declaration in support. 

Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to provide any argument or legal authority to show why 

such confidential documents should be disclosed, or how defendants objections are insufficient. 

////

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 11 of 19
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

12

Plaintiff replies that the December 7, 2011 and April 16, 2012 incident reports might show 

that the administration knew the animosity was only between Kumi/Bar Area, Southern Hispanic 

and Mexican National inmates, because the December 7, 2011 incident report may contain the 

dispute that led to the riot between such inmates. (ECF No. 103 at 10.) Plaintiff points to Lt. 

Clough’s acknowledgment of such dispute in response to grievances by inmates Boudreaux, 

Morris and Jackson. (ECF No. 103 at 10.) Although Lt. Clough left out the affiliation of the 

groups involved in such dispute, plaintiff argues that the Crips and Bloods can be eliminated as 

part of the December 7, 2011 dispute because they were on lockdown. Plaintiff seeks this critical 

information to dispel defendants’ claims that all African-American inmates were placed on 

modified program for safety and security reasons because prison staff could not determine who 

the Southern Hispanics were actually targeting. (ECF No. 103 at 10-11.)

In defendants’ privilege log, defendants contend that 720 pages of incident reports, 

memoranda, investigative memoranda & reports, and confidential portions of program status 

reports, pertaining to the December 7, 2011 and April 16, 2012 melees that occurred on Facility

C, contain confidential information that would jeopardize the safety and security of the institution 

if disclosed, citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3321, 3450(d); Cal. Gov’t Code § 6254(f), and the 

official information privilege. (ECF No. 99-1 at 53.) Defendants provided the declaration of T. 

Kraemer, litigation coordinator, who explains why disclosure of such information would 

jeopardize the security of the staff, inmates, and institution. (ECF No. 99-1 at 56-58.) Kraemer 

avers that it would not be possible to craft a protective order to cover these competing concerns.

In section 1983 cases, federal law, not state law, applies to resolve the question of 

privileges. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 

1975), aff’d 426 U.S. 394 (1976); Bryant v. Armstrong, 285 F.R.D. 596, 604 (S.D. Cal. 2012). 

Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information. See Kerr, 511 F.2d 

at 197-98. To determine whether the official information privilege applies, the court must 

balance the interests of the party seeking discovery and the interests of the government entity 

asserting the privilege. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 

However, in the context of civil rights action, “this balancing approach is moderately ‘preCase 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 12 of 19
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

13

weight[ed] in favor of disclosure.’” Bryant, 285 F.R.D. at 596 (quoting Kelly v. City of San Jose, 

114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (N.D. Cal. 1987)).

To trigger the court’s balancing of interests, the party opposing disclosure must make a 

“substantial threshold showing.” Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (quoting Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 669). 

The party opposing disclosure “must submit a declaration or affidavit from a responsible official 

with personal knowledge of the matters to be attested to in the affidavit.” Id.; see also Stevenson 

v. Blake, 2012 WL 3282892, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012). The declaration must include: “(1) 

an affirmation that the agency has maintained the confidentiality of the documents at issue; (2) a 

statement that the official has personally reviewed the documents; (3) a specific identification of 

the governmental or privacy interests that would be compromised by production; (4) a description 

of how disclosure subject to a carefully crafted protective order would create a substantial risk of 

harm to these interests; and (5) a projection of how much harm would be done to these interests if 

disclosure were made.” Id., citing Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 670. If the objecting party does not meet 

the requirements for invoking the privilege, a court will overrule the privilege objection and order 

full disclosure. Bryant, 285 F.R.D. at 605 (citing cases).

Here, defendants provided a declaration in support of their privilege objection. However, 

defendants have broadly incorporated 720 pages of documents into three categories: (1) All 

Incident reports and memorandums pertaining to the December 7, 2011 and April 16, 2012 melee 

that occurred on C-Facility;” (2) December 7, 2011 - Modified Program SAC-C-11-018 Incident 

Reports, Investigative Memoranda & Reports, Confidential Portions of Program Status Reports--

CDCR 3022B, Parts, C, D, & E, Confidential Unlock Plan of Action;” and (3) April 16, 2012 -

Modified Program SAC-C-12-002 Incident Reports, Investigative Memoranda & Reports, 

Confidential Portions of Program Status Reports--CDCR 3022B, Pars C, D, & E, Confidential 

Unlock Plan of Action.” (ECF No. 99-1 at 53.) Kraemer’s declaration does not further identify 

specific documents, except for “the operations manual and investigative reports.” (ECF No. 99-1 

at 56.) Kraemer appears to claim that disclosure of all 720 pages would generally undermine the 

institution’s ability to keep peace, security, and order, and negatively impact all future internal 

investigations, and claims that “there is simply no way to craft a protective order to address all 

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 13 of 19
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

14

[such] concerns.” (ECF No. 99-1 at 56-58.) However, in cases involving inmate plaintiffs, courts

often order the production of documents with confidential information redacted and accompanied 

by a privilege log. See, e.g., Manriquez v. Hutchins, 2011 WL 3290165 at *8 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 

2011); Womack v. Virga, 2011 WL 6703958 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011); Candler v. Santa 

Rita Cnty. Jail Watch Commander, 2014 WL 2120310 at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2014). 

Moreover, in a case involving similar claims, CDCR defendants were ordered to produce 

relevant, non-privileged portions of the incident reports, as well as rules violation reports 

concerning the inmates involved in the incident because they were reasonably calculated to lead 

to the discovery of admissible evidence. Martinez v. Allison, 2013 WL 1222037 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 

25, 2013) (Martinez asserts violations of his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights 

because he was placed on a modified program based solely on his race as a southern Hispanic, 

and his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by suspending his outdoor exercise privileges 

during the modified program). Even privileged documents are discoverable “if the potential 

benefit in discovery outweighs any potential disadvantages.” Bryant v. Thomas, 2012 WL 

1985310 at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2012) (citing Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 

1033 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Weighing the possible benefits of discovery against both the defendants’ asserted official 

information privilege, and the privacy concerns of third party inmates, the court finds that there is 

a narrow category of documents where discovery is appropriate. Plaintiff’s motion is granted as 

to the non-privileged portions of incident reports concerning the December 7, 2011 and April 16, 

2012 melees or riots. Defendants are permitted to redact the names and identification of 

individuals who are non-parties. Moreover, because it appears that the program status reports 

may also lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, portions of which have been disclosed to 

plaintiff, those portions of the program status reports pertaining to the December 7, 2011 and 

April 16, 2012 melees that defendants deemed confidential shall be submitted to the court for in 

camera review.

In all other respects, plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to request no. 5, or for 

additional in camera review, is denied.

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 14 of 19
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

15

c. Request for Production No. 6

I request to obtain any and all memorandums pertaining to AfricanAmerican and Southern Hispanic inmates on C-Facility engaging in 

a "race-riot" prior to the Dec. 7, 2011 melee.

Response to Request for Production No. 6

Defendants object to this request on the grounds it is overbroad and 

vague as to time, the word “melee,” and the phrases “any and all 

memorandums,” “pertaining to African-American and Southern 

Hispanic inmates,” and “engaging in a ‘race-riot.’” Further, this 

request far exceeds the permissible scope of discovery because it 

seeks information not relevant to any claim or defense at issue in 

this lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The 

request also seeks information that is deemed confidential under 

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3321, the 

disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the safety of other inmates 

and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security of the 

institution. Additionally, the production of confidential information 

is improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have access to 

information designated confidential. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, 

§ 3370(d).

Because the request does not identify the documents Plaintiff is 

seeking with reasonable specificity, and is not relevant to any 

claims or defenses in this lawsuits, Defendant does not respond to 

this request.

(ECF No. 99 at 10.)

The undersigned finds the defendant’s objections well-taken. Plaintiff’s request is 

overbroad as to time and vague. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden in demonstrating that such 

evidence is relevant and likely to lead to admissible evidence. The motion to compel is denied, 

and plaintiff’s motion for in camera review of such documents is also denied.

5. Request for Inmate List with Housing Codes

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to obtain the Inmate Housing Code (“IHC”) and name of 

every inmate placed on the integrated yard list on March 27, April 4, June 26, July 11, and July 

16, 2012, because the IHC will reveal if any of the inmates had a history of violence or 

documented racial incidents. Plaintiff contends that if even a majority of such inmates had prior 

histories of violence or racial incidents, such information would demonstrate that the modified 

program was discriminatory and not implemented to protect the safety of the inmates or the 

////

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 15 of 19
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

16

institution, but to cause African-Americans harm. Plaintiff contends that the modified program 

was implemented in order to harm the African-American population. 

However, defendants aver that plaintiff did not seek such discovery in any of his 

discovery requests propounded during the discovery period. (ECF No. 99 at 11; 99-1 at 2, 5-50.) 

Plaintiff fails to rebut defendants’ argument, and cannot obtain a court order compelling 

responses to a request not tendered. Plaintiff’s motion to compel such information is denied. 

6. Conclusion

For the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part, and denied in part.3 

II. Request for Sanctions

In his motion, plaintiff argues that sanctions should be imposed based on defendants’ 

refusal to turn over certain material or answer questions. Plaintiff objects that it should not have 

taken defendants 107 days to provide the limited responses provided. He contends that many of 

the interrogatories were not answered, and no documents were provided in response to his request 

for production of documents. (ECF No. 91 at 3.) Essentially, plaintiff seeks sanctions based on 

defendants’ delay in providing the discovery, as well as their failure to provide the additional 

discovery sought. However, defendants were granted extensions of time in which to provide the 

discovery responses. Moreover, at the time defendants responded to plaintiff’s discovery, there 

was no court order in place. Defendants violated no court order by claiming confidentiality or by 

objecting to plaintiff’s discovery requests. The court finds no grounds to impose sanctions.

III. Motion to Extend Discovery

Plaintiff seeks to extend discovery, arguing that it was not until he received defendants’ 

interrogatory responses that he learned about 200 inmates were involved in the December 7, 2011 

riot. Plaintiff argues that if 200 inmates were involved, it would bolster his claims that Facility C 

officials released Hispanic inmates not scheduled for yard so they could assault African American 

inmates. (ECF No. 91 at 7-8; 103 at 11.) Plaintiff argues that if he is allowed to review the 

 

3

 All parties remain under the obligation to supplement their discovery responses if the 

responding party learns that a response was incomplete or incorrect, and such information has not 

been otherwise made known to the other party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 16 of 19
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

17

video, it may show such Hispanic inmates being released. But if it does not, the December 7, 

2011 incident report for the riot will so demonstrate, because it will contain the name, affiliation 

and housing of all inmates who were present during the riot. Plaintiff contends this demonstrates 

good cause to extend the discovery deadline. 

In light of this order, discovery is reopened for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiff 

time to review the additional discovery, and for the court to conduct an in camera review. No 

new discovery requests may be propounded by any party. The discovery deadline is extended to 

January 6, 2017. 

The deadline for filing pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, is set for 

March 8, 2017. In all other respects, the January 6, 2016 scheduling order remains in effect.

IV. Plaintiff’s Access to Legal Materials and Related Motion for Sanctions

On August 2, 2016, the undersigned ordered defendants to provide the court with the 

status of plaintiff’s access to his legal materials and his ability to attend the law library. 

Defendants were to provide such status report within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed his reply to 

defendants’ opposition to the discovery motion on August 12, 2016. On September 12, 2016, 

plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions based on defendants’ failure to timely file the status report. 

In addition to sanctions, plaintiff asks the court to order defendants to provide plaintiff with a 

copy of the entire record so he can begin preparing his motion for summary judgment, and an 

incremental thirty day order so that plaintiff can be placed on the priority legal user (“PLU”) 

access list. On October 4, 2016, defendants’ counsel filed the status report, and claims that 

because plaintiff filed his reply, counsel wrongfully believed that plaintiff had received his legal 

materials.

However, on page one of plaintiff’s reply, signed August 3, 2016, he confirms that he was 

transferred to California State Prison, Lancaster (“CSP-LAC”) without his legal property, and 

notes that “responding to defendants’ opposition may be difficult, however, will try his best to do 

so.” (ECF No. 103 at 1.)

Moreover, whether or not defendants’ counsel believed that plaintiff had received his legal 

materials, defendants were ordered to provide the court a status report on or before August 16, 

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 17 of 19
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

18

2016. Whether or not plaintiff filed additional documents suggesting he had access to some or all 

of his legal materials is not relevant to defendants’ obligation to comply with the court’s order. 

At a minimum, counsel should have sought relief from the court order on such basis. In addition, 

had counsel investigated the issue as requested, plaintiff would have been earlier provided his 

legal materials, and the parties and the court may have been spared from the additional motion for

sanctions and further briefing. 

Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides for the imposition of any and all sanctions 

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the court if a party fails to comply 

with the court’s Local Rules or any order of the court.

The record reflects that plaintiff’s access to his legal materials has been hampered by his 

multiple transfers between facilities within and among institutions, as well as his mental health 

issues. (ECF No. 109-1 at 6-7.) However, it appears that plaintiff received the remainder of his 

property on September 26, 2016. (ECF No. 109-1 at 3.) Thus, his request to be provided with 

copies of the court record is denied. The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the court’s 

docket. Plaintiff’s request for PLU status is also denied. Plaintiff is no longer housed in a mental 

health crisis bed, but has been transferred to CSP-LAC, where he has access to his legal materials

and the law library. (ECF No. 109 at 4.) 

At this time, the court will not sanction defendants’ counsel for the failure to timely file 

the status report, but warns counsel that a future failure to timely comply with a court order will 

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

V. Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 91) is granted in part: 

(a) Within thirty days from the date of this order, defendant Virga shall answer the 

following interrogatory: “Identify the day, month, and year of the last riot between AfricanAmerican inmates against any Southern Hispanic or Mexican National inmates that occurred 

before December 7, 2011, at Facility C of CSP-SAC.”

////

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 18 of 19
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

19

(b) Within thirty from the date of this order, defendants shall arrange for plaintiff 

to viewing the videotapes of the December 7, 2011 and April 16, 2012 melees or riots, and ensure 

plaintiff has the ability to take notes and adequate time to review them.

(c) Within thirty days from the date of this order, defendants shall produce to 

plaintiff the non-privileged portions of the incident reports concerning the December 7, 2011 and 

April 16, 2012 melees or riots. Defendants are permitted to redact the names and identification of 

individuals who are non-parties. 

(d) Within thirty days from the date of this order, defendants shall submit to the 

court, for in camera review, those portions of the program status reports pertaining to the 

December 7, 2011 and April 16, 2012 melees or riots, that defendants deem confidential. 

(e) In all other respects, plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 91) and motion for 

in camera review (ECF No. 104) is denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 91) is denied; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline (ECF No. 91) is partially granted; 

4. Discovery is reopened until January 6, 2017, for the limited purpose set forth above; 

No new discovery requests may be propounded by any party; 

5. The deadline for filing pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, is set for 

March 8, 2017. In all other respects, the January 6, 2016 scheduling order remains in effect; 

6. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 106) is denied; and

7. The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the court’s docket.

Dated: October 12, 2016

cole1021.mtc.fb2

Case 2:13-cv-01021-JAM-KJN Document 110 Filed 10/13/16 Page 19 of 19