Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01131/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01131-9/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 

ERIC RYAN HAYDE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TAMARA TABER, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:23-cv-1131 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, proceeds pro se with claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for 

excessive force and sexual assault in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. See ECF Nos. 1, 

7, 10. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 37. ECF No. 39. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is granted in 

part and denied in part. 

I. Background 

A. Plaintiff’s Allegations 

Plaintiff alleges defendant Taber violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. ECF 

No. 1. Specifically, he alleges that he suffers from severe hemorrhoidal inflammation, and on 

May 25, 2021, Taber sexually assaulted him during his appointment for a “visual examination” of 

his hemorrhoids. Id. at 3-4. During the exam, Taber used “unwanted, unnecessary and invasive 

anal penetration” by jamming three fingers in and out of his rectum six times and rotating her 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 1 of 15
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 

fingers each time. Id. at 4. This resulted in rectal bleeding for two weeks, months of excruciating 

pain when having a bowel movement, emotional distress, emotional injury, and humiliation. Id. 

at 4, 8. 

B. Discovery Deadlines 

On December 1, 2023, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order, ECF No. 20, 

which was subsequently amended multiple times. ECF No. 24, 27, 31, 34, 38.1 Pursuant to the 

court’s order of June 7, 2024, the deadline to file motions to compel was extended to September 

13, 2024. ECF No. 34. In ruling on a subsequent motion, the court inadvertently shortened the 

deadline to August 12, 2024. ECF No. 38 at 2. 

C. Motion to Compel 

On January 24, 2024, plaintiff served defendant with Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for 

Production of Documents (RFP Set 1). ECF No. 40-1 at 9-15. On April 8, 2024, defendant 

served plaintiff with Responses to Plaintiff’s RFP Set 1. Id. at 17-26. On April 21, 2024, 

plaintiff served defendant with 20 pages worth of responsive discovery. ECF No. 39-1 at 3. 

Because plaintiff was displeased that defendant’s response did not produce any documents for 

inspection or copying and instead asserted numerous objections, he wrote defendant’s counsel a 

letter expressing his concerns. ECF No. 39-1 at 2-3, 55-58. On April 29, 2024, defendant’s 

attorney informed plaintiff that defendant would be serving further responses to Plaintiff’s RFP 

Set 1 in about two weeks. ECF No. 40-1 at 28. Plaintiff subsequently agreed to extend the 

deadline further, until June 7, 2024. Id. at 32. On June 7, 2024, 2 defendant served plaintiff with 

supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s RFP Set 1. See id. at 35-49; ECF No. 39-1 at 5. According 

to plaintiff, the supplemental response was not timely and was not in fact a response because the 

1

 Plaintiff filed multiple requests for extensions of time to complete discovery, which impacted 

the deadline to file motions to compel. See ECF Nos. 20, 24, 31, and 35. 

2

 Plaintiff provides two different dates for the date of service of defendant’s supplemental 

responses. ECF No. 39 at 3 (plaintiff states supplemental responses were served June 13); ECF 

No. 39-1 at 5 (plaintiff states supplemental responses were served June 7). Defendants do not 

provide a proof of service with the supplemental responses, but the supplemental responses are 

dated June 7, 2024. ECF No. 40-1 at 49. Because the court does not make any ruling based on 

the timeliness of the responses, for the sake of clarity, the court will use the June 7 date. 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 2 of 15
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 

documents disclosed were effectively the same documents plaintiff had served on defendant in 

response to defendant’s request for production and again stated numerous objections. ECF No. 

39-1 at 5. 

As a byproduct of the above referenced discovery dispute, plaintiff filed a motion to 

compel discovery and for sanctions on August 15, 2024. See generally ECF Nos. 39, 39-1; see 

also 39-1 at 15. In opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendant argues that the court 

should deny the motion because (1) plaintiff’s motion is untimely, and (2) defendant adequately 

responded to Plaintiff’s RFP Set 1 in a timely manner. ECF No. 40 at 6. Defendant also argues 

that the court should not grant sanctions against defendant because plaintiff makes meritless 

allegations against defendant’s counsel, and that instead, the court should grant defendant’s 

counsel reasonable attorney’s fees for time spent responding to plaintiff’s motion to compel. Id. 

at 6, 8. No reply was filed. 

II. Legal Standard for Discovery 

The scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) is broad. 

Discovery may be obtained as to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within 

this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. The court, 

however, must limit discovery if it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained 

from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;” or if the 

party who seeks discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery;” 

or if “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(2)(C). The purpose of discovery is to “make a trial less a game of blind man’s buff and 

more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent,” 

United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958) (citation omitted), and “to 

narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties,” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 

(1947). 

Where a party fails to produce documents requested under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 34, the party seeking discovery may move to compel production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 3 of 15
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 

“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, No. 07-cv-0200 JM PCL, 2009 WL 1390794 at *1, 

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42339 at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (citations omitted); see also Nugget 

Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 438-39 (9th Cir. 1992) (upholding 

denial of motion to compel because moving party did not show the request fell within the scope 

of Rule 26(b)(1)). The opposing party is “required to carry a heavy burden of showing why 

discovery was denied.” Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). 

III. Discussion 

A. Timeliness of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 

Defendant argues that the motion to compel should be denied because it was filed three 

days late. ECF No. 40 at 8. Defendant further argues that plaintiff cannot contend that the 

motion was timely under the prisoner “mailbox rule,” because he was paroled and released from 

prison and therefore the “mailbox rule” does not apply. Id. at 9 n.4. Defendant is correct as to 

the inapplicability of the mailbox rule. “Plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of the prison 

mailbox rule after . . . he was released from prison.” Benyamini v. O’Brian, No. 2:11-cv-2317 

TLN AC P, 2015 WL 5734551, at *1 n.3, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130575, at *1 n.3 (E.D. Cal. 

Sept. 28, 2015), findings and recommendations adopted sub nom. 2016 WL 11658673, 2016 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 6105 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2016). The court nonetheless finds that it would be 

inappropriate to deny the motion as untimely based on a three-day delay, because (1) plaintiff has 

not been previously advised that the mailbox rule no longer applies, and (2) the court 

inadvertently shortened the deadline by approximately one month. 

Accordingly, in the interests of justice, plaintiff’s motion to compel is deemed timely. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 4 of 15
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 

B. Adequacy of Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s RFP Set 1 

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to RFP Set 1, Requests Nos. 1-2, 5-9. ECF 

No. 39-1 at 6-9.3 

1. Requests for Production Numbers 1, 2, 5 and 6 

The court addresses these requests together. 

Request No. 1: Any and all grievances, complaints, or other documents, including 

but not limited to any confidential inquiries that were made to address Plaintiff’s 

allegation of staff misconduct which were received by CDCR prison staff, K. Rueter 

(M.D.) (Chief Medical Executive); and/or, S. Gates, (Chief), or their agents at High 

Desert State Prison. 

Request No. 2: Any and all grievances, complaints, or other documents received by 

prison staff or his/her agents at High Desert State Prison concerning the 

mistreatment of inmate patients by by [sic] Defendant Tamara Taber, and any 

memoranda, investigative files, or other documents which were created in response 

to such complaints beginning [sic] March 15, 2021 through May 25, 2021 and since 

May 25, 2021. 

Request No. 5: Any and all logs, lists, memoranda, investigative inquiries, 

investigative files, or other documentation involving staff complaints and/or 

grievances which were filed by High Desert State Prison inmates and/or any other 

inmate at any other prison against defendant Taber between March 15, 2021 through 

March 15, 2023. 

Request No. 6: Any and all documents created by High Desert State Prison staff 

member or any other department of correction employee or official who conducted 

any investigation in response to grievance and/or staff complaint which was filed by 

the plaintiff against defendant Taber in May of 2021, concerning his medical care, 

and any appeals of that grievance. 

Defendant objects to these requests 

 as being vague as to the terms and/or phrases: “other documents,” “made to 

address,” “address,” “confidential inquiries,” “plaintiff’s allegation of staff 

misconduct,” “staff misconduct,” “received,” “agents,” “prison staff or 

his/her,” “mistreatment,” “logs,” “lists,” “memoranda,” “investigative 

inquiries,” investigative files,” “other documentation,” “created,” “official,” 

“conducted,” “investigation,” “in response to,” “grievance and/or staff 

complaint,” “filed,” “May of 2021,” and “concerning his medical care”; 

 assuming facts not in evidence/lacking foundation; 

 as seeking irrelevant information or documents and/or information and 

documents that are outside the scope of permissible discovery; 

 as being overbroad; 

 as violating third-party rights to privacy (as to RFP’s 1, 2, and 5 only); 

3

 Defendants address all 10 RFPs because they claim it is not entirely clear on which document 

requests plaintiff is moving to compel. ECF No. 40 at 11. However, since plaintiff only 

explicitly references RFPs 1-2, 5-9 in his motion, and only makes passing references to some of 

the other RFPs, the court only addresses RFPs 1-2, 5-9. 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 5 of 15
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 

 to the extent it seeks material or information protected from disclosure by 

the official information privilege; and 

 being vague as to time (as to RFP 1 only). 

Without waiving the above objections, with respect to RFP Nos. 1, 5, and 6, defendant 

produced documents Bates Stamped TABER001-12. Defendant, however, withheld the 

following based on objections and privileges asserted in the privilege log: 

 Health Care Staff Complaint – Headquarters’ Level Review Worksheet, 

dated 9/23/21 

 Staff Complaint – Confidential Inquiry, dated 8/30/21 

 General Chrono (Closure Report), dated 6/16/214 

 Unredacted Grievance History 

 Redacted Grievance History 

See ECF No. 40-1 at 36-39, 41-45 (summarized). Defendant further stated that “[a]fter diligent 

search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not possess any documents responsive to [RFP 

No. 2].” Id. at 39 (emphasis added). And that “[d]iscovery is continuing. Defendant reserves the 

right [sic] change, amend or supplement this response.” Id. at 37-39, 43, 45. 5 

Defendant’s objection regarding the overbreadth of RFP Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 are well taken, 

because: (1) RFP No. 1 is not limited to documents concerning plaintiff’s grievances, complaints, 

or other documents made to address plaintiff’s allegations against defendant; (2) RFP Nos. 2 and 

5 are not limited to documents concerning grievances and/or complaints similar to those 

presented to the court in this case; and (3) RFP No. 6 is not limited to documents concerning 

plaintiff’s complaints and/or grievances against defendant regarding the specific conduct at issue 

in this case. However, documents regarding plaintiff’s grievances and/or complaints against the 

4

 Defendant indicates that she subsequently produced a General Chrono (Closure Report), dated 

6/16/21. See ECF No. 40 at 12 n.5. Because plaintiff did not file a reply, the court will presume 

this document was provided and the dispute with respect to this document has been resolved. 

5

 While an advisement that responses will be amended or supplemented should additional 

responsive documents be discovered is appropriate, defendant’s repeated assertions in the initial 

responses that she was continuing to search for responsive documents and would produce them as 

they were discovered is inappropriate, particularly since she initially failed to produce any 

documents. As previously ordered, “[r]esponses to written discovery requests shall be due fortyfive days after the request is served.” ECF No. 20 at 5; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A) 

(allowing for more or less than 30 days to respond by stipulation or court order). If defendant 

needed more time to complete her search for responsive documents or was waiting to receive 

documents, she should have asked plaintiff or the court for more time and not merely stated 

something to the effect of “I will produce them if or when I happen to find them.” 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 6 of 15
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 

defendant related to the claims in this action, including any investigative documents regarding 

such conduct, and documents regarding allegations of the same type of conduct at issue in this 

action by defendant towards other inmates, are relevant and discoverable. The scope of the 

request will be narrowed accordingly. See Houston v. Eldridge, 2018 WL 1014459, at *5, 2018 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28865, at *13 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2018) (finding pro se prisoner entitled to 

discovery of grievances filed by other inmates against defendants for similar claims, despite 

relevancy objection). 

With respect to RFP Nos. 2 and 5, plaintiff states that he is seeking “relevant disclosure 

pertaining to other inmate/patient prisoners who have made allegations or filed complaints of 

misconduct against the defendant.” ECF No. 39-1 at 15. Defendant argues that plaintiff is 

misleading the court by saying that his requests “seek prisoner complaints alleging misconduct” 

when the request did not in fact use the word “alleging.” ECF No. 40 at 13. There is no merit to 

this argument. Although plaintiff’s requests for grievances and complaints by other 

inmate/patient prisoners does not contain the term “allegations,” it is well understood that 

grievances and complaints contain allegations. As such, the court construes RFP Nos. 2 and 5 to 

seek documentation related to alleged and confirmed mistreatment by defendant against other 

inmate/patient prisoners. 

The court rejects defendant’s argument that RFP Nos. 2 and 5 seek inadmissible character 

evidence. “[W]hile character evidence may not be admissible at trial, admissibility is not the test 

for discovery because that evidence may be admissible for other purposes. . . . Inmate complaints 

could also be relevant to show Defendant’s state of mind and motive.” Stone v. Pfeiffer, 2024 

WL 325370, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2024); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Information 

within [the] scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”). Thus, 

although instances of misconduct related to other inmates would not directly prove the defendant 

used excessive force or sexually assaulted plaintiff, sufficient similarities in complaints could 

potentially demonstrate a pattern of conduct by defendant that would speak toward her intent, 

which is a necessary component to each of the claims against her. 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 7 of 15
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 

With respect to defendant’s objection to RFP No. 1 concerning vagueness in time, the 

period for the responsive documentation can be reasonably limited to the dates identified by 

plaintiff in other requests, like RFP No. 5—between March 15, 2021, through March 15, 2023. 

With respect to the claims of privilege, defendant’s privilege log identifies the ground for 

withholding the documents under “Official information privilege and confidentiality of 

investigative material. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3321, 3450(d); 3999,231(f)(4); Cal. Civ. 

Code § 1798.24.” ECF No. 40-1 at 51-52. Plaintiff argues that the production request is relevant 

to his case, he has a right to these documents, no privacy rights are affected with respect to 

requests only involving him, and the release of the requested documents would not endanger 

anyone’s safety or institutional safety. ECF No. 39-1 at 6, 14. 

“Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information. 

Government personnel files are considered official information. To determine whether the 

information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the 

potential disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the privilege bars discovery.” Sanchez v. City of 

Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). “The balancing 

approach of the Ninth Circuit is mirrored in this and other courts’ previous determinations that a 

balancing test is appropriate when the disclosure of law enforcement files in a civil action is at 

issue.” Doubleday v. Ruh, 149 F.R.D. 601, 609 (E.D. Cal. 1993) (citations omitted). Documents 

that are a part of the personnel records of state officials defending civil rights actions, while 

containing sensitive information, are within the scope of discovery. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 

F.R.D. 603, 614-15 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citing Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227, 229 

(S.D. Cal. 1993)); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 296 (C.D. Cal. 1992). 

A party claiming that information is privileged must “describe the nature of the 

documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner 

that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to 

assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). In addition to a privilege log, a party seeking 

to invoke the official information privilege and prevent disclosure must submit an affidavit from 

an official of the agency in control of the materials sought that includes the following: 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 8 of 15
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 

“(1) an affirmation that the agency generated or collected the 

material in issue and has maintained its confidentiality; (2) a 

statement that the official has personally reviewed the material in 

question; (3) a specific identification of the governmental or privacy 

interests that would be threatened by disclosure of the material to 

plaintiff and/or his lawyer; (4) a description of how disclosure 

subject to a carefully crafted protective order would create a 

substantial risk of harm to significant governmental or privacy 

interests, and (5) a projection of how much harm would be done to 

the threatened interests if disclosure were made.” 

Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (citations omitted). 

 In this case, the defendant’s privilege log fails to sufficiently identify the subject matter of 

the documents being withheld. As a result, the court is unable to discern whether the records fall 

within the appropriate scope of plaintiff’s claims against defendant. 

Furthermore, the declaration proffered by defendant is insufficient to support claims of 

official information privilege. The declaration from S. Gates, Chief of Health Care 

Correspondence and Appeals Branch for California Correctional Health Care Services, which 

provides oversight of medical appeals and grievances for adult inmates in CDCR, addresses 

factors three through five in only a general and conclusory fashion. ECF No. 40-2 at ¶¶ 8-18. 

Additionally, S. Gates’s declaration does not address why redaction would not be a sufficient 

safeguard. And surprisingly, the opposition cites to a case where the court deemed redaction 

rather than withholding disclosure appropriate. See ECF No. 40 at 12. Accordingly, there is 

insufficient evidence to convince the court that redaction would not sufficiently address privacy 

and security concerns in this instance. 

Defendant’s arguments regarding potential recidivism are similarly general and 

conclusory, and therefore rejected. 

Lastly, with respect to RFP No. 2, although defendant responded that she does not have 

any documents in her possession, it is unclear from her response whether that is because such 

documents do not exist or because the documents exist but are outside her possession. Defendant 

will be required to clarify her response. 

Defendant will therefore be required to produce: (1) the documents identified but 

withheld; (2) copies of any documents, including investigative documents, concerning plaintiff’s 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 9 of 15
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 

grievances and/or complaints against defendant regarding defendant’s physical examination of 

plaintiff’s rectum on May 25, 2021; and (3) any documents involving staff complaints and/or 

grievances of which she is aware,6 that deal with allegations against defendant for excessive force 

or inappropriate touching when conducting physical medical exams of inmates’ private parts, 

including their rectum, from March 15, 2021, to March 15, 2023. The documents may be 

redacted as necessary for security purposes and to exclude any sensitive information not related to 

defendant’s use of excessive force or inappropriate touching when conducting physical medical 

exams of inmates’ private parts, or sexual assault during physical medical exams. This includes 

the redaction of other inmates’ identifying information, which the court recognizes may go 

beyond inmate name and number. If safety, security, or privacy concerns remain even after 

redaction, defendant may move for a protective order that explicitly addresses why redaction is 

insufficient. To the extent defendant is aware that these documents exist but are not in her 

possession, defendant shall explain why the documents are not accessible to her and identify the 

appropriate custodian of records so that plaintiff may subpoena the records if he wishes. 

2. Requests for Production Number 7 

Request No. 7: Any and all notes, memorandum, recordings; electronic, digital or 

otherwise obtained as a result of an investigation of plaintiff’s allegations of sexual 

assault, deliberate indifference, or excessive force involving defendant Taber. 

Defendant Objections to RFP No. 7: 

Defendant objects to these requests 

 as being vague as to the terms and/or phrases: “obtained,” “obtained as a 

result of,” “as a result of,” “investigation,” “investigation of plaintiff’s 

allegations,” “sexual assault,” “deliberate indifference,” “excessive force,” 

and “involving”; 

 assuming facts not in evidence/lacking foundation; 

 as seeking irrelevant information or documents and/or information and 

documents that are outside the scope of permissible discovery; 

 as being overbroad; 

 to the extent it seeks material or information protected from disclosure by 

the official information privilege; and  calling for a legal conclusion. 

Without waiving the above objections Defendant responds as follows: After a 

diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not possess any documents 

responsive to this request. 

6

 Defendant is considered to be aware of any such documentation contained within his personnel 

file. 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 10 of 15
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 

ECF No. 40-1 at 45-46 (objections summarized). 

 Defendant’s objection regarding the overbreadth of RFP No. 7 is well taken, as plaintiff 

does not limit his request to documents or files obtained as a result of plaintiff’s allegations 

against defendant related to defendant’s physical examination of plaintiff on May 25, 2021. 

However, documents and files obtained as a result of plaintiff’s allegations against defendant as 

stated in this action, regardless of the form in which they exist (e.g. digital, electronic or paper 

format), are relevant, and the scope of the request will be narrowed accordingly. 

 For the same reasons stated above, defendant’s assertion of the official information 

privilege is rejected as insufficient. 

 Although defendant responded that she does not have any documents in her possession, it 

is unclear from the response whether that is because such documents do not exist or because the 

documents exist but are outside her possession. This response is particularly questionable given 

that defendant has identified documents for other requests that appear to overlap with this request 

and would therefore similarly be identified as responsive. See ECF No. 40-1 at 44 (identifying 

several withheld documents regarding the investigation into plaintiff’s allegations against 

defendant, which would likely contain notes responsive to this request). Defendant will therefore 

be required to produce all notes, memoranda, recordings obtained from investigation of plaintiff’s 

allegations related to defendant’s physical examination of plaintiff on May 25, 2021, regardless of 

the method in which they were produced and/or stored. The documents may be redacted as 

necessary for security purposes and to exclude any sensitive information not related to 

defendant’s use of excessive force in conducting physical medical exams of inmates’ private 

parts. This includes the redaction of other inmates’ identifying information, which the court 

recognizes may go beyond inmate name and number. If safety, security, or privacy concerns 

remain even after redaction, defendant may move for a protective order. To the extent defendant 

is aware that these documents and/or files exist but they are not in her possession, defendant shall 

explain why the documents and/or files are not accessible to her and identify the appropriate 

custodian of records so that plaintiff may subpoena the records if he wishes. 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 11 of 15
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 

3. Requests for Production No. 8 

RFP No. 8: Any and all notes, memoranda, recordings; electronic (digital, analog, or 

otherwise), obtained as a result of any witness interview of correction’s officer Stone 

concerning the complaint allegations against Tamara Taber, and any findings of said 

interview. 

Defendant Objections to RFP No. 8: 

Defendant objects to these requests  as being vague as to the terms and/or phrases: “obtained,” “obtained as a 

result of,” “as a result of,” “witness,” “interview,” “witness interview,” 

“correction’s,” “correction’s officer,” “complaint,” “complaint allegations,” 

“findings,” and “findings of said interview”;  assuming facts not in evidence/lacking foundation;  as seeking irrelevant information or documents and/or information and 

documents that are outside the scope of permissible discovery;  as being overbroad; and  to the extent it seeks material or information protected from disclosure by 

the official information privilege. 

Without waiving the above objections Defendant responds as follows: After a diligent 

search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not possess any documents responsive to 

this request. 

ECF No. 40-1 at 46-47 (objections summarized). 

Defendant’s objections regarding vagueness, overbreadth, and relevance are overruled. 

The request is reasonably understood to encompass all notes, memoranda, and recordings, 

regardless of the format in which they were produced and/or stored, relating to any witness 

interviews of correctional officer Stone regarding plaintiff’s allegations related to defendant’s 

examination of plaintiff on May 25, 2021. Documents and/or files concerning interviews of 

potential witnesses to the alleged misconduct by defendant are relevant. Additionally, for the 

same reasons stated above, defendant’s assertion of the official information privilege is rejected 

as insufficient. 

Although defendant responded that she does not have any documents in her possession, it 

is unclear from the response whether that is because such documents do not exist or because the 

documents exist but are outside her possession. Defendant will therefore be required to produce 

all notes, memoranda, and recordings relating to correction officer Stone’s interviews regarding 

plaintiff’s allegations concerning defendant’s physical examination of plaintiff on May 25, 2021, 

regardless of the method in which they were produced and/or stored. To the extent defendant is 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 12 of 15
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 

aware7 that these documents and/or files exist but they are not in her possession, defendant shall 

explain why the documents and/or files are not accessible to her and identify the appropriate 

custodian of records so that plaintiff may subpoena the records if he wishes. 

4. Request for Production No. 9 

RFP No. 9: Any and all documents created by any High Desert State Prison staff member 

from March 15, 2021 to the present concerning the plaintiff’s medical care and/or any 

other prisoner which tends to support deliberate indifference, callous indifference, or any 

similar misconduct related to the above mentioned allegations, or other forms of staff 

doctor misconduct which is not included in items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 of this request. 

Defendant’s Objections to RFP No. 9: 

Defendant objects to these requests  as being vague as to the terms and/or phrases: “concerning plaintiff’s 

medical care and/or any other prisoner,” “plaintiff’s medical care and/or any 

other prisoner,” “tends to support,” “deliberate indifference,” “callous 

indifference,” “similar misconduct,” “similar,” “misconduct,” “related to the 

above mentioned allegations,” “other forms of staff doctor misconduct,” 

“forms,” “staff doctor misconduct,” and “not included in items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 

6, 7, or 8 of this request”;  assuming facts not in evidence/lacking foundation;  as seeking irrelevant information or documents and/or information and 

documents that are outside the scope of permissible discovery;  as being overbroad;  calls for a legal conclusion;  to the extent it seeks material or information protected from disclosure by 

the official information privilege; 

 violates third-party rights to privacy; 

 vague as to time; and 

 unintelligible as drafted. 

Based on the foregoing objections, no materials will be produced in response to this 

request. 

ECF No. 40-1 at 47-48 (objections summarized). 

The court does not find RFP No. 9 unintelligible. However, defendant’s objections to 

overbreadth and relevance are well taken, as this request is not limited to documents concerning 

defendant Taber’s medical care of plaintiff, much less defendant’s physical examination of 

plaintiff on May 25, 2021, and similar misconduct by defendant Taber towards other prisoners 

during a physical medical exam; and seeks documents that tend to support medical deliberate 

indifference or callous indifference claims, which takes the scope of the request well beyond the 

7

 See note 5. 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 13 of 15
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 

issues in this case. In narrowing the request with these limitations in mind, the court has 

determined that any such narrowing would render the request duplicative of the discovery sought 

under RFP Nos. 2 and 5. As a result, the court will not require further responses to RFP No. 9. 

C. Motion for Sanctions 

Within the motion to compel, plaintiff asserts that sanctions should be awarded based on 

defendant’s counsel’s pattern of conduct manifesting improper purpose that consisted of meritless 

objections to plaintiff’s requests for production. ECF No. 39-1 at 15. Defendant responds that 

the court should not grant sanctions because plaintiff’s allegations against defendant’s counsel are 

meritless, and as a pro se litigant plaintiff has not established he incurred any costs or attorney’s 

fees in bringing the action. ECF No. 40 at 6, 23. Defendant then argues plaintiff should be 

required to pay defendant’s counsel reasonable attorney’s fees in responding to plaintiff’s motion 

to compel. Id. at 6, 24. 

Where as here, the court has decided to grant in part and deny in part plaintiff’s motion to 

compel, “the court may issue a protective order and may apportion reasonable expenses for the 

motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C) (emphasis added). In this case, the court declines to do so. 

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied because (1) defendant was substantially justified in 

asserting several objections to plaintiff’s requests, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii); (2) pro se 

litigants are not entitled to attorney’s fees, Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432, 435 (1991); and (3) 

plaintiff has not demonstrated he incurred cost in bringing his motion to compel, Bird v. Mayhew, 

No. 1:15-cv-0298-LJO (SAB), 2016 WL 374555, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2016). See e.g., 

Decristoforo v. Rexon Indus. Corp., 2009 WL 2905804, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2009) 

(“Although [defendant] was often dilatory and less than forthcoming in its responses to plaintiff’s 

discovery requests, the court declines to award expenses in this matter because plaintiff’s motion 

to compel was granted only in part (as noted on the record, several limitations were imposed on 

the scope of plaintiff’s discovery requests), and because [defendant’s] objections to many of the 

discovery requests . . . raised reasonable questions that justified obtaining the court’s ruling.”). 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 14 of 15
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 

Because plaintiff’s motion to compel was justified, the court also denies defendant’s 

request for reasonable expenses. 

III. Conclusion 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED in part and DENIED as 

follows: 

a. GRANTED to the extent that defendant must provide supplemental responses to 

Requests for Production, Set 1, Nos. 1, 2, and 5-8; 

b. DENIED as to Request for Production, Set 1, No. 9. 

2. Supplemental responses shall be provided within thirty days of the service of this 

order; 

3. Within thirty days of the service of this order, defendant may move for a protective 

order with respect to any sensitive documents, as provided above; and 

4. Within forty-five days of the service of this order, plaintiff may file any necessary 

motion for sanctions if defendants fail to comply with this order. 

DATED: October 30, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-01131-AC Document 44 Filed 10/31/24 Page 15 of 15