Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986-28/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALENTINE UNDERWOOD, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

W. J. SULLIVAN, et al., ) 

)

)

)

Defendants. ) 

 )

1:08-cv-00986-GSA-PC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

(Docs. 108, also resolves Doc. 118.)

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS

NORTHCUTT, TRUITT, AND TRUJILLO

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S

INTERROGATORY NO. 9 WITHIN 45

DAYS

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Valentine Underwood ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on July 17, 2008. 

(Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the original Complaint, against defendants Correctional

Officer (“C/O”) M. Northcutt and C/O S. Martin for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment;

and against defendants C/O M. Northcutt, C/O S. Martin, C/O D. Caviness, C/O A. Trujillo, and C/O

P. Truitt, ("Defendants") for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The 1

Defendant Seth Lantz was dismissed from this action on July 18, 2011, via Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.

1

(Doc. 107.) Defendant J. Fambrough was dismissed from this action on December 9, 2011, via Plaintiff's motion to

dismiss. (Doc. 121.) All other claims and defendants were dismissed by the Court on October 21, 2009, based on

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 31.)

1

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 124 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 9
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

parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and on June

15, 2011, this case was reassigned to the undersigned for all further proceedings. (Docs. 4, 97, 102.) 

On April 11, 2011, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order establishing a deadline of

December 11, 2011, for the parties to complete discovery, including motions to compel. (Doc. 91.) 

On August 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (Doc. 108.) On September 6, 2011,

Defendant filed an opposition. (Doc. 109.) On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a reply. (Doc. 115.) 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is now before the Court. 

II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS 

2

Plaintiff’s allegations arise from incidents that occurred while he was incarcerated at Kern

Valley State Prison ("KVSP") in Delano, California, and the California Correctional Institution

("CCI") in Tehachapi, California.

Plaintiff alleges that on November 21, 2006, defendants C/O Northcutt and C/O Martin

approached him because theywanted to know whyPlaintiff had been talking to Lieutenant Whitehead

the previous day. Plaintiff told Northcutt and Martin that he told Whitehead he was having difficulty

with some of the officers, including Northcutt and Martin, since filing an inmate appeal against C/O

Hart. Northcutt then pepper sprayed Plaintiff and hit him in the face with the pepper spray can. 

Martin struck Plaintiff repeatedly with his baton. Plaintiff tried to hit back, and then lay down on the

floor on his stomach. Northcutt and Martin continued to kick and punch Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges

that defendants Caviness, Trujillo, and Truitt also kicked and struck him. Plaintiff was pepper

sprayed again, had a bag pulled over his head, and was then handcuffed. 

Lieutenant Whitehead instructed two officers to escort Plaintiff to the clinic, where Dr. Dileo

had Plaintiff’s head, left hand, and ribs x-rayed. Dr. Dileo also cleaned the bite wound on Plaintiff’s

right hand, gave him a tetanus shot, and sutured the area above Plaintiff’s right eye. Dr. Dileo gave

Plaintiff some painkillers and a vest to wear over his rib area. Plaintiff alleges that he also had a

swollen left hand, fingers and wrist; lumps all over his head; scratches and abrasions on his lower

This summary contains allegations from Plaintiff’s Complaint against defendants Northcutt, Martin,

2

Caviness, Trujillo, and Truitt, and background information, upon which this action now proceeds.

2

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 124 Filed 03/07/12 Page 2 of 9
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

back; and bruises all over his body. He also bled from the cut above his right eye, from his nose, and

from his right hand. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered from blurred vision, lower back pain, and nose

bleeds as a result of the assault.

Plaintiff alleges that for several days after November 24 or 25, he asked for medical care

because his injuries caused him pain and received painkillers on November 29, 2006. Plaintiff was

seen by Dr. Akano on December 13, 2006, and he told Dr. Akano that he was suffering from blurred

vision and lower back pain, and that the bite on his right hand had become infected. Dr. Akano

prescribed painkillers and a cream. Plaintiff continued to seek additional medical care. On January

31, 2007, Dr. Akano prescribed Plaintiff painkillers for his lower back pain, and ordered another x-ray

of Plaintiff’s back. On February 6, 2007, Plaintiff had his lower back x-rayed. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Northcutt confiscated his mail out of retaliation. On February

4, 2007, Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal after having his incoming and outgoing mail disappear, and

after finding that defendant Northcutt had been reassigned to the mail room after the November 21,

2006, incident. 

On March 13, 2007, Plaintiff was transferred to CCI. After Plaintiff arrived at CCI, he was

referred to a nerve specialist for the bite on his right hand, an orthopedic surgeon for injuries to his

right hand and right elbow, and for physical therapy for lower back pain. 

Excessive Force Claim

Plaintiff brings an excessive force claim against defendants Northcutt, Martin, Caviness,

Trujillo, and Truitt. “What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and

Unusual Punishments Clause [of the Eighth Amendment] depends upon the claim at issue . . . .” 

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). “The objective component of an Eighth Amendment

claim is . . . contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency.” Id. (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted). The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always violates

contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is evident. Id. at

9; see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (Eighth Amendment excessive force

standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis injuries)). However, not “every

3

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 124 Filed 03/07/12 Page 3 of 9
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

malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.” Id. at 9. “The Eighth

Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments necessarilyexcludes from constitutional

recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort ‘repugnant

to the conscience of mankind.” Id. at 9-10 (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). 

“[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of

the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied

in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.”

Id. at 7. “In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it may also be proper

to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of

force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts made to

temper the severity of a forceful response.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

“The absence of serious injury is . . . relevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry, but does not end it.” 

Id.

Retaliation Claim

Plaintiff brings a retaliation claim against defendants Northcutt and Martin. “Within the

prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An

assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that

prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First

Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” 

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted); accord

Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009). 

III. MOTION TO COMPEL

Pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party propounding discovery

may seek an order compelling disclosure when an opposing party has failed to respond or has

provided evasive or incomplete responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(3). The moving party bears the

burden of demonstrating “actual and substantial prejudice” from the denial of discovery. See Hallett

v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted.). Pursuant to Rule 33, an

4

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 124 Filed 03/07/12 Page 4 of 9
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

interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P.

33(a)(2). Under Rule 26(b), “[U]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as

follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

party's claim or defense — including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and

location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know

of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to

the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if

the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if a party fails to obey an

order to provide or permit discovery, the court may issue further just orders, which may include the

imposition of sanctions upon the disobedient party, including dismissal of the action or proceeding

in whole or in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). “[T]he court must order the disobedient party, the

attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused

by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of

expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). 

A. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants Northcutt, Truitt, Trujillo, Caviness, and

Martin to respond further to Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 16 of his first set of Interrogatories. The

3

Court shall address each interrogatory in turn.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

"Please describe in as much detail as possible the complete

circumstances surrounding all the other instances in which you have

been involved in an incident in which the use of force was applied

while employed for CDCR. Include in your response the

circumstances surrounding any review or disciplinary action that

occurred after each actual or threatened application of force.”

///

In his motion, Plaintiff also seeks further responses from defendant Fambrough; however, defendant

3

Fambrough was dismissed from this action since Plaintiff filed his motion.

5

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 124 Filed 03/07/12 Page 5 of 9
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

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

“Defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly

broad, not relevant to any claim or defense in this lawsuit, not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,

lacks foundation, assumes facts not in evidence, seeks to invade

Defendants’ and other inmates’ privacy, requests confidential

information the disclosure of which would create a hazard to the safety

and security of the institution, is compound, and harassing. Based

upon these objections, Defendants will not answer this interrogatory.”

Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to respond to Interrogatory No. 9. Plaintiff asserts that

he attempted to resolve this dispute with Defendants’ counsel (“Counsel”) prior to submitting this

motion to compel. Plaintiff provides a copy of a letter dated June 16, 2011 and directed to Counsel,

in which Plaintiff argues that the information requested in Interrogatory No. 9 is relevant pursuant to

Rule 26(b)(1) which states, “A variety of types of information not directly pertinent to the incident

in suit could be relevant to the claims or defenses raised in a given action. For example, other

incidents of the same type, or involving the same product, could be properly discoverable under the

revised standard.” (Motion, Doc. 108 at 4; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee’s notes to

2000 Amendment.) With respect to Defendants’ objections based on privacy and confidentiality,

Plaintiff suggests that Defendant could “blackout [sic] inmates and CDCR staff addresses, phone

numbers and other personal information you deem would creat [sic] a hazard to their safety and

security.” Id. at 4-5. 

Defendants argue that they properly objected to Interrogatory No. 9 because employee

personnel files are confidential, and “opening [] such files to a plaintiff for a general search [] could

reach well beyond the legitimate inquiries necessary.” (Opp’n, Doc. 109 at 2:8-10; citing Sanchez

v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1991.) Defendants also cite privacy rights

under federal common law and California statutes. Defendants also argue that Interrogatory No. 9

is overly broad, not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,

lacks foundation, assumes facts in evidence, is compound, and harassing.

///

6

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 124 Filed 03/07/12 Page 6 of 9
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

Plaintiff replies that Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana is not applicable to Interrogatory No. 9,

because Plaintiff cannot obtain the requested information from a different source, and Plaintiff is not

requesting access to employees’ personnel files. Plaintiff argues that under Rule 402 of the Federal

Rules of Evidence, Defendants’ prior incidents of excessive force are discoverable because they are

relevant to the excessive force allegations in this action. Plaintiff also argues that disclosure of the

information requested will not create a hazard if Defendants black out the personal information.

Discussion

In cases such as Plaintiff’s, which proceed against prison officials on a claim of excessive

force, the Court allows discovery of records of other claims of excessive force against named

defendants in the past. While evidence of wrongs are “not admissible to prove a person’s character

in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character,” such

evidence may be admissible for other purposes, and here, the Court finds that the information

requested by Plaintiff is relevant to his claims. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). 

Defendants argue that the information sought byPlaintiff is private, because information from

personnel files is confidential under common law and California statutes. However, federal courts

are not governed by California statutes. “Questions of privilege that arise in the course of the

adjudication of federal rights are ‘governed by the principles of the common law as they may be

interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience.’ ” United States

v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562, 109 S.Ct. 2619, 2625 (1989) (quoting Federal Rule of Evidence 501). 

Despite claims of privilege, personnel files are discoverable in federal question cases. Garrett v. City

and County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1519 n. 6 (9th Cir.1987) (citations omitted). While this

Court may give some weight to privacy rights protected by state statutes, the “ultimate responsibility

for deciding how much weight to ascribe to such interests, and how that weight compares with the

significance of competing interests, must reside with the federal courts.” Kelly v. City of San Jose,

114 F.R.D. 653, 656 (N.D.Cal. 1987). Plaintiff asserts that he does not seek access to Defendants’

personnel files, but only seeks information from Defendants about their past incidents of use of force

and any resulting disciplinary action against them. The Court finds that in Plaintiff’s case, the

7

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 124 Filed 03/07/12 Page 7 of 9
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

probative value of such relevant evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to Defendants. 

Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thus, Defendants’ objections shall be overruled, and Plaintiff’s motion to compel

a response to Interrogatory No. 9 shall be granted. Within forty-five days, defendants Northcutt,

Truitt, and Trujillo shall provide responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 9. Defendants Caviness

and Martin, however, shall not be required to provide responses, as Plaintiff did not request responses

from them when he served the first set of Interrogatories.4

INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

"Identify any documents related to any Complaint, grievance,

criticism, censure, reprimand or rebuke directed towards the

defendants prior to or subsequent to the incident giving rise to this

proceeding.”

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

“Defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly

broad, vague, and ambiguous in its entirety, not relevant to any claim

or defense in this lawsuit, not reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence, lacks foundation, assumes facts not

in evidence, seeks to invade Defendants’ and other inmates’ privacy,

requests confidential information the disclosure of which would create

a hazard to the safety and security of the institution. Without waiving

these objections, and assuming this interrogatory is asking Defendants

to identifyall documents Defendants received regarding theNovember

21, 2006 incident, Defendants respond as follows: Appeal log no.

KVSP-07-0057.”

Parties’ Positions

 Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ response to Interrogatory No. 9 is incomplete, and should

be treated as a failure to respond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4). 

Defendants argue that their answer to InterrogatoryNo. 16 is complete. Defendants maintain 

that they have fully answered the interrogatory, notwithstanding their objections, based upon their

personal knowledge and the information available to them, and they informed Plaintiff that they had

no additional information. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants are evasive in refusing to answer the question as asked. 

Plaintiff asserts that the interrogatory does not ask Defendants to identify all documents they received

Plaintiff’s first set of Interrogatories, dated June 29, 2010, was directed only to defendants Fambrough,

4

Lantz, Northcutt, Truitt, and Trujillo. (Doc. 115 at 7.)

8

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 124 Filed 03/07/12 Page 8 of 9
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

regarding the November 21, 2006 incident, but rather requests information about Defendants’

retaliation against Plaintiff’s witnesses to the incident. Plaintiff seeks to “establish a pattern of

Defendants violating inmates constitutional rights” through “bias [and]racist and retaliatoryacts prior

to and subsequent to the incident giv[ing] rise to this matter.” (Reply, Doc. 115 at 5.) 

Discussion

Defendants have adequately responded to Interrogatory No. 16 as stated. Plaintiff cannot

expect Defendants to guess that “documents related to anyComplaint, grievance, criticism, censure,

reprimand or rebuke directed towards the defendants” refers to information about retaliation against

Plaintiff’s witnesses. Defendants’ objections that the interrogatory is overly broad, vague, and

ambiguous are sustained. Moreover, information about retaliation is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims

for excessive force against defendants Northcutt, Truitt, and Trujillo. Therefore, none of the 5

defendants are required to provide further responses to Interrogatory No. 16. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on August 24, 2011, is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part; 

2. Within forty-five days from the date of service of this order, defendants Northcutt,

Truitt, and Trujillo shall provide responses to Interrogatory No. 9 of Plaintiff’s first

set of interrogatories dated June 29, 2010; and

3. Defendants are not required to provide further responses to Interrogatory No. 16.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 6, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

As noted above, Plaintiff’s first set of Interrogatories, dated June 29, 2010, was directed only to defendants

5

Fambrough, Lantz, Northcutt, Truitt, and Trujillo, and defendants Fambrough and Lantz are now dismissed from this

action. (Doc. 115 at 7.)

9

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 124 Filed 03/07/12 Page 9 of 9