Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00414/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00414-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

ALONZO JAMES JOSEPH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. PARCIASEPE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0414 GEB AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 33) which 

defendant opposes (ECF No. 34). 

I. Procedural History 

Plaintiff’s first request for production was served on October 10, 2015. ECF No. 33 at 7-

8. After requesting a two-week extension, defendant served his response on December 11, 2015. 

ECF No. 37-1 at 28. Plaintiff served a second request for production on January 26, 2016 (ECF 

No. 33 at 12-14), which defendant declined to respond to because it was served after the close of 

discovery and the time for timely submitting requests (id. at 10). 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:14-cv-00414-GEB-AC Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 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 

2

The deadline for filing discovery motions was January 15, 2016. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel was not filed until February 16, 2016,1 approximately one month after the 

deadline had passed. On April 8, 2016, the court decided that it would consider plaintiff’s motion 

despite its untimeliness, and ordered defendant to supplement the record with copies of his 

responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests and the certificates of service. ECF No. 36. Defendant 

complied on April 11, 2016. ECF No. 37. 

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations 

 Plaintiff’s complaint proceeds on his claims that defendant Parciasepe retaliated against 

him for filing grievances by targeting him for excessive cell and pat searches, threatening to have 

officers plant a knife in his cell, threatening that plaintiff would be his “next victim,” and issuing 

him a false rules violation report. ECF No. 13 at 5-6, 10. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant 

Parciasepe solicited another inmate to assault him. Id. at 9-10. 

III. Motion to Compel 

A. Standards Governing 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, may limit discovery if it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained 

from another 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 trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff 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) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 

U.S. 495, 501 (1947)), and to narrow and clarify the issues in dispute, Hickman, 329 U.S. at 501. 

 

1

 Since plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox rule. See 

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 

Case 2:14-cv-00414-GEB-AC Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 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 

3

Where a party fails to produce documents requested under Rule 34, the party seeking 

discovery may move for compelled disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). The party 

seeking to compel discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery sought is relevant. 

Aros v. Fansler, 548 F. App’x 500, 501 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 

71 (9th Cir. 2002)). 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). 

 B. Plaintiff’s Requests for Production 

 Plaintiff’s first request for production, served on October 10, 2015, read as follows: 

Request for production no’s 1 thru 19 of all documents to 

interrogatories and admissions 1 thru 17. 

All documents that[’]s in your possession. 

ECF No. 33 at 7. In requesting an additional two weeks to respond to the request for production, 

as well as to the interrogatories and requests for admission, defendant’s counsel stated that the 

request for production was “one compound, thirty-six part request for production of documents 

(requesting documents in response to each interrogatory and request for admission).” ECF No. 

24 at 3, ¶ 4. However, upon responding to the request, defendant ignored the first half of the 

request and responded only to the portion of the request seeking all documents in defendant’s 

possession. ECF No. 37-1 at 27. Defendant responded 

[o]bjection. This request is overly broad as to time, scope, subject 

matter, and relevancy. Defendant further objects on the grounds 

Plaintiff is requesting privileged and confidential documents. 

Because the request does not identify the documents Plaintiff is 

seeking with reasonable specificity, Defendant is unable to respond. 

Id. 

 Had plaintiff in fact requested “[a]ll documents that[’]s in [defendant’s] possession,” 

defendant’s objections and failure to produce documents would have been appropriate, though the 

request for an additional two weeks to respond would not have been justified. However, plaintiff 

did not request, without qualification, all documents in defendant’s possession. Nor did 

defendant’s counsel originally understand the request as such. Rather, the request is reasonably 

understood as seeking all documents in defendant’s possession that were identified in defendant’s 

Case 2:14-cv-00414-GEB-AC Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 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 

4

responses to the interrogatories and requests for admission. A broader, though not unreasonable, 

interpretation as to some of the interrogatories would be that the request sought the documents in 

which the requested information was recorded. For example, the request could be interpreted to 

seek production of any reports generated as a result of investigations identified in Interrogatory 

Seventeen. Plaintiff’s second set of requests for production, which appears to be an attempt by 

plaintiff to clarify his request, supports either interpretation as the documents sought in Requests 

One through Six (ECF No. 33 at 12-13) seek documents that would be used to record the 

information sought in Interrogatories Fifteen through Nineteen (ECF No. 37-1 at 8-12). 

 Based on the interrogatories and plaintiff’s second set of production requests, it appears 

that plaintiff probably expected the responses to his interrogatories to identify specific documents, 

or at a minimum, reference specific grievances, complaints, and the like, which could then be tied 

to identifiable documentation. ECF No. 37-1 at 8-12. However, review of defendant’s responses 

to plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for admission reveals that defendant does not identify 

any specific documents in his responses other than a “non-disciplinary, corrective-action letter of 

instruction” which he states “has been removed from his personnel file,” but does not state 

whether a copy may exist elsewhere, such as in a personal file maintained by defendant or as part 

of the investigation packet. ECF No. 37-1 at 3-12, 17-23. While defendant cannot be faulted for 

plaintiff’s erroneous expectations as to the content of the interrogatory and admission responses 

that he would receive, he is not entirely without blame for the current state of affairs. 

Plaintiff’s second request for production of documents was served on January 26, 2016. 

ECF No. 33 at 14. This was almost two weeks after discovery closed and a month and a half after 

defendant served his responses to plaintiff’s first request for production. Defendant is not 

responsible for plaintiff waiting until after the close of discovery to serve his second set of 

production requests. However, the court finds it hard to believe that defendant required the entire 

forty-five day period, let alone an additional two weeks, to respond to a request for “[a]ll 

documents that[’]s in [defendant’s] possession.” It is difficult to see the request for an additional 

two weeks, as it relates to the request for production, as anything other than unnecessary delay on 

the part of defendant. There is no rule that all of a plaintiff’s discovery requests must be 

Case 2:14-cv-00414-GEB-AC Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 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 

5

responded to at the same time, and given defendant’s response to the first request for production 

and the lack of reference to the production request in the interrogatory and admission responses, 

the response could and should have been served by the original response deadline without 

extension. Had defendant served his response by the original deadline and plaintiff responded in 

the same timeframe as he did here, the second set of requests would have been served two weeks 

earlier. The requests would have still been untimely, but would have at least been served prior to 

the close of discovery and thus construed as a timely attempt to resolve the discovery dispute 

without court intervention, which is how the court will treat the request now. 

Alternatively, had defendant properly responded to plaintiff’s first request for production 

as thirty-six requests corresponding to the interrogatories and requests for admission, as counsel 

originally indicated that defendant would, the two-week extension would have been justified, but 

plaintiff would have potentially had a better understanding as to the deficiencies in his original 

request and been able to provide clarification in a more timely fashion.2 It is troubling that after 

initially, and correctly, interpreting the production request as a multi-part request tied to the 

interrogatories and requests for admission, counsel apparently chose to be deliberately obtuse in 

interpreting the request when providing a response. 

It is impossible to know what would have happened had the request for production been 

appropriately responded to as a multi-part request, but it is almost certain that the motion to 

compel before the court would have taken on a different appearance. The motion would have 

perhaps followed along the lines of plaintiff’s second set of production requests, which offers a 

more focused picture of what plaintiff was seeking. 

 The court finds that although there are issues with plaintiff’s first request for production, 

defendant’s treatment of that request as a request for all documents in defendant’s possession was 

inappropriate. However, rather than start again from the beginning and require defendant to 

submit thirty-six separate responses tied to the interrogatories and requests for admissions, the 

court will instead focus on plaintiff’s second set of production requests, which identifies the types 

 

2

 For example, defendant may have responded that his interrogatory and admission responses did 

not identify any documents and that as a result there was nothing to produce. 

Case 2:14-cv-00414-GEB-AC Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 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 

6

of documents plaintiff was actually attempting to request and therefore narrows the request. 

 The second set of production requests consists of the following seven requests: 

Request for Production No. 1: Produce any and all inmate appeals 

submitted against you for misconduct. 

Request for Production No. 2: Produce any and all staff 

complaints against you for misconduct. 

Request for Production No. 3: Produce any and all investigation 

reports by the hiring authorities, internal affairs, or any 

investigation reports for misconduct. 

Request for Production No. 4: Produce any and all reprimands, or 

any letters for misconduct. 

Request for Production No. 5: Produce any and all reports, 

decisions, documents, and reasonings why you was transfere from 

one institution to another, for disciplinary purpose’s, or misconduct. 

Request for Production No. 6: Produce any and all law suits filed 

against you for misconduct. 

Request for Production No. 7: Produce any and all grievances, 

complaints, and letters from past until present from your coworker’s, to the supervisor’s about your unprofessional misconduct. 

ECF No. 33 at 12-13. The documents requested in Requests One through Six correspond with the 

information sought in Interrogatories Fifteen through Nineteen (see ECF No. 37-1 at 8-12) and 

will therefore be treated as clarification of the original request for production. However, upon 

review, the court does not find that the documents sought in Request Seven correspond to any of 

the interrogatories or requests for admission because plaintiff did not previously seek information 

related to issues voiced by defendant’s co-workers. See id. at 3-12, 17-22. 

Because Request Seven does not correspond to any of plaintiff’s interrogatories or 

requests for admission and therefore cannot reasonably be interpreted as a clarification of the 

original, timely request for production, no further response shall be required. Additionally, 

defendant’s response to Interrogatory Eighteen reflects that he has not been transferred from one 

institution to another for disciplinary purposes or due to misconduct. Id. at 11. This response 

establishes that there would not be any documents responsive to Request Five, and no further 

Case 2:14-cv-00414-GEB-AC Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 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 

7

response will be required to as to that request. As for Requests One, Two, Three, Four, and Six, 

discovery will be re-opened for the limited purpose of having defendant respond to these requests, 

as modified below. 

Defendant’s responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories indicate that there may be documents 

responsive to Requests One, Two, Three, Four, and Six. However, in their current form these 

requests are overly broad as to the period of time and subject matter they cover. The court will 

therefore limit the requests to a period of April 1, 2011, one year prior to plaintiff’s first staff 

complaint against defendant (ECF No. 10 at 3), to the present. “Misconduct” shall also be limited 

to the types of actions identified in the complaint, such as retaliating against inmates for filing 

grievances, targeting inmates for excessive cell and pat searches, threatening to have officers 

plant evidence, threatening inmates generally, issuing false rules violation reports, and soliciting 

inmates to assault other inmates. Defendant will be given a deadline to respond to the requests 

and may object or provide responses as though he were receiving these requests from plaintiff in 

the first instance, rather than as the result of a motion to compel. Plaintiff shall be given a date by 

which he must file any motion to compel related to the responses. If plaintiff requires additional 

time to file a motion to compel, he must file a motion for extension of time. Any late motions to 

compel will be denied as untimely unless accompanied by an explanation showing good cause 

why the motion is late and why plaintiff failed to request additional time. 

 C. Transcript of Plaintiff’s Deposition 

 It appears that plaintiff may also be seeking to compel defendant to provide him with a 

copy of his deposition transcript free of charge. ECF No. 33 at 2. After a deposition has been 

taken, the court reporter “must retain the stenographic notes of a deposition taken 

stenographically or a copy of the recording of a deposition taken by another method. When paid 

reasonable charges, the [court reporter] must furnish a copy of the transcript or recording to any 

party or the deponent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). The court reporter is not required to provide 

plaintiff with a copy of his transcript until he has paid for a copy and defendant is not required to 

bear the cost of obtaining a copy of the transcript for plaintiff. Moreover, while plaintiff may be 

proceeding in forma pauperis, the statute authorizing plaintiff’s status does not authorize the 

Case 2:14-cv-00414-GEB-AC Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 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 

8

expenditure of public funds for deposition transcripts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Tedder v. Odel, 890 

F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (“‘[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of 

an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress’”) (alteration in original) 

(quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). For these reasons, plaintiff’s 

request to have a copy of his deposition transcript provided free of charge will be denied. 

 D. Conclusion 

 Plaintiff’s motion to compel will be granted in part and denied in part. The motion will be 

granted to the extent defendant is required to respond to Requests for Production One, Two, 

Three, Four, and Six from the second set of production requests as narrowed by the court. The 

motion is denied in all other respects. 

IV. Summary 

 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is partially granted and defendant will be required to respond 

to Requests for Production One, Two, Three, Four, and Six from the second set of production 

requests. The requests have been narrowed by the court to cover a specific period of time and to 

limit the kinds of “misconduct” complained of. The motion to compel is denied as to all other 

requests for production and as to the request for a free copy of the deposition transcript. 

Defendant must serve plaintiff with his responses by June 13, 2016. After receiving the 

responses, plaintiff has until July 18, 2016, to file a motion to compel if he thinks the responses 

are not good enough. After he gets the responses, if plaintiff thinks he will need more time to file 

a motion to compel, he must file a motion for extension of time explaining to the court why he 

needs more time. If plaintiff does not request more time and his motion is late, the court will 

deny the motion as untimely unless plaintiff shows good cause why it is late and explains why he 

did not ask for more time. This order does not give plaintiff permission to make new discovery 

requests. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 33) is granted in part and denied in part. The 

motion is granted to the extent that defendant must respond to Requests for Production One, Two, 

Three, Four, and Six from the second set of production requests as narrowed by the court above. 

Case 2:14-cv-00414-GEB-AC Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 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 

9

The motion is denied in all other respects. 

 2. Discovery is re-opened for the limited purpose of having defendant respond to 

Requests for Production One, Two, Three, Four, and Six from the second set of production 

requests and for plaintiff to compel further responses if necessary. 

3. Defendant shall have until June 13, 2016, to serve his responses to plaintiff’s requests 

for production as set forth in this order. 

4. Plaintiff shall have until July 18, 2016, to file any motion to compel related to the 

responses to Requests for Production One, Two, Three, Four, and Six from the second set of 

production requests. 

DATED: May 11, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-00414-GEB-AC Document 38 Filed 05/11/16 Page 9 of 9