Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01707/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01707-14/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY GASTON, No. CIV S-03-1707-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

EDWARD CADEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 93), filed on

July 23, 2007. Defendants filed an opposition (Doc. 96) on August 8, 2007. 

In his motion to compel, plaintiff seeks an order requiring defendants to “produce

for inspection and copying the documents requested on date: July 18, 2007.” Plaintiff has not,

however, attached to his motion copies of the disputed discovery requests or proof of service

thereof on defendants. In addition to opposing plaintiff’s motion to compel on this basis,

defendants also address the merits of their objections and argue that the motion to compel should

be denied because their responses were adequate. Defendants have provided the court with

copies of plaintiff’s discovery requests and their responses. 

Case 2:03-cv-01707-LKK -CMK Document 106 Filed 09/17/07 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

2

I. BACKGROUND

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed on May 23,

2005. The remaining defendants are: Caden, Aguirre, Haley, Manuel, and Prebula, all of whom

have appeared. In the second amended complaint, plaintiff offers the following summary of his

claims:

. . .This is a civil action filed by Anthony Gaston, a severely

disabled (mobility impaired wheelchair user) state prisoner for

compensatory and punitive damages brought against California

Department of Corrections (CDC) prison officials (defendant Caden) for

serious deprivations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights . . . where prison

officials . . . intentionally, and deliberately failed to protect plaintiff by

staging a gladiator fight between plaintiff and known “enemy,” and

attempted to solicit a campaign to have other prisoners to assault/kill

plaintiff for filing past grievances, and civil suits, subjecting plaintiff to

cruel and unusual punishment. 

. . . Defendant Aguirre violated plaintiff’s eighth and fourteenth

amendment rights when he was illegally placed in punitive administrative

segregation (ad-seg) based on false, erroneous, and misleading,

confidential information that was not reliable, unsupported, nor

corroborated, plaintiff’s retainment in ad-seg was unconstitutional because

it was allegedly based on a prisoner threatening to kill plaintiff if

defendant Aguirre did not remove plaintiff off the main line, subjecting

plaintiff to be unlawfully retained in ad-seg for approximately two years

based solely on the confidential threats made against plaintiff. 

. . .Defendants Caden and Aguirre conspired, colluded, aided and

abetted against plaintiff when each of them purposely placed plaintiff’s

life in danger, then secretly infiltrated as though they were protecting

plaintiff, which subjected plaintiff to deliberate indifference in violation of

the eighth amendment when defendants and each of them knew or should

have known that the prisoners who made threats to assault/kill plaintiff

should have been the only persons retained in ad-seg, such failure to carry

out standard practices and procedures have subjected plaintiff to cruel and

unusual punishment. 

. . . Defendants . . . Prebula, Haley, and Manuel directly, indirectly,

separately, and in their own individual capacities subjected plaintiff to

serious constitutional violations that demonstrates unethical conduct

known as the “Green Wall” code of silence, said defendants and each of

them knew or should have known that their actions and omissions

(unknown to plaintiff at the time) was conspiratorial and designed to cover

up the attempt to solicit murder in a campaign to hire other inmates to

carry out this ‘organized racketeering crime scheme,’ to cover up staging

gladiator medieval fights between documented enemies, to cover up

working hand in hand with inmate hench-men under loose fitted policies

that allow inmates to dictate who they want or don’t want on “their

mainline” by approaching staff and threatening to kill other prisoners if

staff does not put the prisoner in the hole, and up for transfer, these

Case 2:03-cv-01707-LKK -CMK Document 106 Filed 09/17/07 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

3

defendants knew or should have known that their actions directly and

indirectly false imprisoned plaintiff, and worked in concert to cover up,

confiscate, conceal, alter, misrepresent, destroy, and/or remove

exculpatory probative documentary mitigating evidence from plaintiff’s

central file (e.g., enemy chrono). 

II. DISCUSSION

At issue are the following discovery requests:

1. Requests for 13 admissions propounded to defendant Haley;

2. Requests for 8 admissions propounded to defendant Manuel;

3. Requests for 13 admissions propounded to defendant Prebula; and

4. Request for production of documents.

Because defendants provided timely responses to each discovery request, plaintiff’s motion is to

compel further responses to plaintiff’s request for production and to determine the sufficiency of

defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s requests for admissions. 

Generally, discovery may be obtained “...regarding any matter, not privileged,

which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(1). Relevancy in the discovery context has been construed broadly to encompass any

matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that bear on, any issue that is

in the case. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978) (citing Hickman

v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). Therefore, a discovery request directed at discovering a

matter which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is not

within the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). See id. Consistent with this rule,

discovery is not limited to issues raised by the pleadings, for discovery itself is designed to help

define and clarify the issues, nor is discovery limited to the merits of a case, for a variety of

fact-oriented issues may arise during litigation that are not related to the merits. See id. at 351.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:03-cv-01707-LKK -CMK Document 106 Filed 09/17/07 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

4

Discovery may not be obtained regarding matters which are privileged. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Thus, if a discovery privilege exists, information may be withheld, even if

relevant to the case. See Baldridge v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345 (1982). The question of privilege is

determined by reference to the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Campbell v. Gerrans, 592 F.2d

1054 (9th Cir. 1979). Generally, questions of privilege “...shall be 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.” Fed. R. Evid. 501. However, in civil actions which do not raise a

federal question, the question of privilege is determined by state law. See Fed. R. Evid. 501. But,

“when state privilege law is consistent, or at least compatible with, federal privilege law, the two

shall be read together in order to accommodate the legitimate expectations of the state’s

citizens.” Pagano v. Oroville Hospital, 145 F.R.D. 683, 687 (E.D. Cal. 1993).

Finally, relevant non-privileged discovery may be limited if: (1) the discovery

sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is

more convenient; or (2) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’

resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the

proposed discovery in resolving the issues. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).

A party to whom requests for admissions have been propounded may either

answer the admission by admitting or denying the matter or object to the request. A denial must

fairly meet the substance of the requested admission. A party may not give lack of information

or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless the party also states that he has made

reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable

the party to admit or deny. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). If an objection is made, the reasons for the

objections must be stated. A party who considers that a matter of which an admission has been

requested presents a genuine issue for trial may not, on that ground alone, object to the request. 

See id.

Case 2:03-cv-01707-LKK -CMK Document 106 Filed 09/17/07 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

5

If, upon a motion made by the requesting party to determine the sufficiency of

responses, the court determines that a response does not comply with the requirements of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 36, the court may order that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a).

A. Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiff made two requests for production of documents. Those requests, and

defendants’ responses, are as follows:

Request for Production No. 1

Produce the 7/30/00 128 enemy chrono.

Response

Defendants object on the grounds that this Request is vague and

ambiguous as to “the 7/30/00 128 enemy chrono.” Subject to and without

waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, Defendants respond as

follows: Assuming Gaston is referring to a confidential CDC 128B dated

July 31, 2000, Defendants will produce the responsive documents for

inspection only, subject to a protective order. . . .

Request for Production No. 2

Produce the Names of each (ICC) committee member who was

among the panel that released Woods to the general population on 8/29/00.

Response

Defendants object on the grounds that the Request lacks foundation

and is framed as an interrogatory, not as a request for production. 

Notwithstanding these objections, and assuming Gaston intended by this

request to ask for any documents with the names of the ICC committee

members who authorized the release of inmate Woods into the general

population on August 29, 2000, Defendants have no responsive documents

in their possession, custody, or control. 

As to the first request, plaintiff in fact agreed to the protective order, which was

entered by the court pursuant to the parties’ stipulation on July 27, 2007. As to the second

request, defendants argue in their opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel that their assertion of

lack of responsive documents is truthful and that plaintiff has not demonstrated otherwise. 

The court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated that an order compelling

further responses is warranted. As to Request No. 1, plaintiff stipulated to a protective order

which allowed him to review the document he requested. As to Request No. 2, defendants do not

have responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. While such documents may

Case 2:03-cv-01707-LKK -CMK Document 106 Filed 09/17/07 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

6

be in the possession, custody, or control of the California Department of Corrections or the

prison itself, those entities are not defendants to this action. The individual defendants

responding to plaintiff’s request for production state that they do not personally have the

documents, and there is no reason not to believe them. 

B. Requests for Admissions

Plaintiff challenges responses received from defendants Manuel, Prebula, and

Haley, arguing that “the failure to answer admissions with erroneous objections must be

answered to deemed waived.” Plaintiff’s argument in its entirety is as follows:

Defendants Manuel, Prebula, and Haley’s failure to answer

plaintiff’s admission with straight answers are not justified, if defendants

can bypass four or five questions at random with frivolous responses that

plaintiff’s request are burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, vague,

incompetent, compound, or ambiguous, these broad responses are

improper and can not be put in place to substitute one answer for another. 

Defendants have an obligation not only to plaintiff, but to honor the rules

and practices of this court, the failure to do so is not only an underminding

[sic] of plaintiff, but a mockery of this court as well. 

Accordingly, this court is entitled to compel the defendants to

respond appropriately. 

At the outset, the court notes that plaintiff has not set forth his “. . . contentions . .

. as to each contested issue.” See Local Rule 37-251(c)(3). In particular, plaintiff has not set

forth each of the disputed requests for admissions and defendants’ responses thereto. See id. 

Nor has plaintiff offered any specific argument as to each disputed request. However, in a

declaration attached to his motion to compel, plaintiff identifies certain responses which he

asserts are inadequate. Specifically, plaintiff challenges: defendant Manuel’s responses to

requests 1, 2, 3, and 5; defendant Haley’s responses to requests 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12; and

defendant Prebula’s responses to requests 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13. Plaintiff does not,

however, offer any particular argument as to any of these disputed responses. 

Notwithstanding the defects in plaintiff’s motion, because defendants have

attached the discovery requests and responses at issue, the court is able to review defendants’

responses to the requests for admissions identified by plaintiff.

Case 2:03-cv-01707-LKK -CMK Document 106 Filed 09/17/07 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

7

1. Defendant Haley’s Responses

Plaintiff challenges defendant Haley’s responses to requests 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11,

and 12. As to request nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 11and 12, defendant Haley denied the matters. As to

request no. 10, defendant Haley admitted that he “participated in ICC panels as a Correctional

Counselor II.” None of these responses is evasive or improper. 

The court, however, finds that defendant Haley’s response to request no. 3 is

insufficient. The request and response are as follows:

Request for Admission No. 3

When ever plaintiff sought an Olen review from his medical file he

was need denied copies based on his indigency.

Response

Unable to admit or deny. As a correctional counselor, Haley did

not have access to medical files. 

As stated above a party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to

admit or deny unless the party also states that he has made reasonable inquiry and that the

information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable the party to admit or deny. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). Defendant Haley has not made any statement as to whether he has made a

reasonable inquiry. Defendant Haley will be required to serve a supplemental response to this

request for admission.

2. Defendant Manuel’s Responses

Plaintiff challenges defendant Manuel’s responses to requests 1, 2, 3, and 5. As to

request no. 1, defendant Manuel objected that the request is vague and ambiguous but otherwise

denied the matter. As to request nos. 2 and 5, defendant Manuel denied the matters. As to

request no. 3, defendant Manuel admitted the matter. These responses are not evasive or

improper. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:03-cv-01707-LKK -CMK Document 106 Filed 09/17/07 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

8

3. Defendant Prebula’s Responses

Plaintiff challenges defendant Prebula’s responses to requests 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

10, and 13. As to request nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 defendant Prebula denied the matters. The

court finds that these responses are neither evasive nor improper. 

As to request nos. 4 and 5, defendant Prebula objected on the basis that they were

vague and ambiguous and, on that basis, stated that he could neither admit nor deny the matters. 

The court sustains the objections. In request no. 4, plaintiff asked defendant Prebula to admit or

deny that “Defendant Prebula was aware of plaintiff’s enemy chrono.” This request is indeed

vague and ambiguous in that it does not refer to any specific enemy or “chrono.” Similarly, in

request no. 5, plaintiff asked defendant Prebula to admit or deny that “Defendant Prebula was

aware of the confidential information against plaintiff,” but he does not refer to any specific

confidential information.

As to request nos. 1 and 2, defendant Prebula stated that he was without sufficient

information to admit or deny, but he did not say anything about whether he has made a

reasonable inquiry. Defendant Prebula will be required to serve supplemental responses to these

requests for admissions.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the court finds that defendants Haley and Prebula

should serve supplemental responses to certain of plaintiff’s requests for admissions. 

Specifically, these defendants stated that they were without specific information upon which to

base an admission or denial, but neither defendant made any statement as to whether they had

made a reasonable inquiry. See id. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:03-cv-01707-LKK -CMK Document 106 Filed 09/17/07 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

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 93) is granted in part and denied in

part;

2. Within 20 days of the date of this order, defendant Haley shall serve on

plaintiff a supplemental response to request for admission no. 3; and

3. Within 20 days of the date of this order, defendant Prebula shall serve on

plaintiff supplemental responses to requests for admissions nos. 1 and 2.

DATED: September 17, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-01707-LKK -CMK Document 106 Filed 09/17/07 Page 9 of 9