Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02349/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02349-27/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE E. JACOBS, IV,

Plaintiff,

v.

A.C. QUINONES, et al.,

Defendants.

1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT (PC)

ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

FURTHER RESPONSES TO 

INTERROGATORIES AND DENYING 

SANCTIONS

(Docs. 107, 115)

I. Background

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '

1983. This action is proceeding on the First Amended Complaint for Plaintiff's Eighth 

Amendment claims against Defendants Does #1-3, Pratt1, Magana, and Davis for the conditions of 

his confinement via deprivation of basic necessities; against Defendants Cogdill, Scaiffe, 

Quinones and Davis for excessive force; and against Defendants Bardonnex and Williams for 

depriving Plaintiff of yard time. (Docs. 11, 17, 19, 24.) On December 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

motion to compel further responses to his interrogatories and for sanctions. (Doc. 107.) On 

December 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a separate motion for sanctions. (Doc. 115.) After receiving 

extensions of time, Defendants filed an opposition to both of these motions to which Plaintiff 

 

1 Erroneously sued herein as "Pruitt."

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 20
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

replied. (Docs. 127, 143.) The motion is deemed submitted.2 L.R. 230(l).

II. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

Plaintiff is entitled to seek discovery of any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to his 

claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery sought may include information that is not 

admissible as long as it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Id. The responding party is obligated to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest 

extent possible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). The responding party shall use common sense and reason, e.g., Collins v. 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 06-2466-CM-DJW, 2008 WL 1924935, *8 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2008), 

and hyper-technical, quibbling, or evasive objections will not be treated with favor.

A responding party is not generally required to conduct extensive research in order to 

answer an interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made. L.H. v. 

Schwarzenegger, No. S-06-2042 LKK GGH, 2007 WL 2781132, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2007). 

Further, the responding party has a duty to supplement any responses if the information sought is 

later obtained or the response provided needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). 

If Defendants object to one of Plaintiff's discovery requests, it is Plaintiff's burden in his 

motion to compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. See Glass v. Beer, No. 1:04-

cv-05466-OWW-SMS, 2007 WL 913876, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2007). In general, Plaintiff 

must inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and, for 

each disputed response, inform the Court why the information sought is relevant and why 

Defendants' objections are not justified. Id., see also Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th 

Cir. 2002); Singleton v. Hedgepath, No. 1:08-cv-00095-AWI, 2011 WL 1806515, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 

May 10, 2011); Williams v. Adams, 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS (PC), 2009 WL 1220311, *1 (E.D. 

Cal. May 4, 2009).

///

 

2 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff=s motion, the opposition, and reply and all exhibits submitted therewith, but 

declines to exhaustively list every argument presented, every fact recited, and every piece of evidence submitted by 

the parties. Omission in this order of reference to various arguments, facts, or evidence should not be interpreted by 

the parties as an indication that the Court overlooked that argument, fact, or piece of evidence.

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 2 of 20
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

A. Interrogatories to Multiple Defendants

Interrogatory No. 5 to Bardonnex; No. 10 to Cogdill; No 10 to Davis; No. 8 to 

Magana; No. 10 to Quinones; No. 10 to Pratt: 

“What are the living conditions of a prisoner placed in a management cell. Please 

explain in detail.” 

Response by Bardonnex, Cogdill, Davis, Magana, and Quinones: 

Objection. The interrogatory is vague, and unintelligible because of the phrase 

“living conditions.” The interrogatory is overbroad because it is not limited to time 

and scope. The interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the claims and 

defenses at issue in this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving objections, Responding Party 

answers: 

The living conditions in a management cell approximate the conditions in a 

Security Housing Unit cell, insofar as the safety and security of the institution, 

inmate and staff will permit.

Response by Pratt:

States the same objections and then responds: Responding Party lacks the requisite 

knowledge to respond to this request because it is not within the scope of her 

duties.

Ruling:

The phrase "living conditions" is vague and Defendants' objection on this ground is 

sustained. For example, it is unknown whether the request seeks information about the physical 

size or condition of the cell or whether it seeks information about the inmate’s privileges while 

housed in a management cell. Further, this interrogatory is potentially relevant only as to Plaintiff's 

claim against Defendants Pruitt, Magana, and Davis for the conditions of his confinement based on 

the temperature and lighting in his cell. Plaintiff's motion to compel responses beyond that already 

provided to the above listed interrogatories is DENIED. 

Interrogatory No. 6 to Bardonnex; No. 11 to Cogdill; No. 11 to Davis; Nos. 10 

& 113to Scaife; No. 9 to Magana; No. 11 to Quinones; and No. 11 to Pratt:

“What are the living conditions of a prisoner placed in a disciplinary detention cell. 

Please explain in detail.” 

Response by Bardonnex, Cogdill, Davis, Scaife, Magana, and Quinones: 

Objection. The interrogatory is vague, and unintelligible because of the phrase 

“living conditions.” The interrogatory is overbroad because it is not limited to time 

and scope. The interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the claims and 

defenses at issue in this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving objections, Responding Party 

 

3

Interrogatory No. 11 is an exact duplicate of Interrogatory No. 10 directed to Scaife. Scaife's response to No. 11 

refers the reader to his response to No. 10, so both are properly addressed here..

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 3 of 20
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

answers: 

The living conditions in a management cell approximate the conditions in a 

general population cell, insofar as the safety and security of the institution, inmate 

and staff will permit. 

Response by Pratt:

States the same objections and then responds: Responding Party lacks the requisite 

knowledge to respond to this request because it is not within the scope of her 

duties.

Ruling:

The phrase "living conditions" is vague and Defendants' objection on this ground is 

sustained. For example, it is unknown whether the request seeks information about the physical 

size or condition of the cell or whether it seeks information about the inmate’s privileges while 

housed in a management cell. Further, this interrogatory is potentially relevant only as to Plaintiff's 

claim against Defendants Pruitt, Magana, and Davis for the conditions of his confinement based on 

the temperature and lighting in his cell. Plaintiff's motion to compel responses beyond that already 

provided to the above listed interrogatories is DENIED. 

Interrogatory No. 7 to Bardonnex; No. 12 to Cogdill, Davis, Scaife, Quiones, 

and Pratt; and No. 10 to Magana: 

“Are there any specific cells designated to house a prisoner on management cell 

status and/or disciplinary detention status here at Corcoran State Prison 4A Yard 

(S.H.U.). Please explain in detail.” 

Response by Bardonnex, Cogdill, Davis, Magana, and Quinones: 

Objection. The interrogatory is overly broad as to time. The interrogatory seeks 

information not relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this action and not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 

waiving objections, Responding Party answers: 

No.

Response by Scaife:

States the same objections and then responds: No, but at one point, I recall that a 

holding cell in 4A1 was designated for contraband surveillance watch.

Response by Pratt:

States the same objections and then responds: Responding Party lacks the requisite 

knowledge to respond to this request because it is not within the scope of her 

duties.

Ruling:

This interrogatory is overbroad as to time, but to the extent Plaintiff is proceeding against 

Magana, Pratt, and Davis on a conditions of confinement claim regarding the temperature and 

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 4 of 20
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

lighting during his time on management cell status, it is relevant at the discovery phase. However, 

Defendants provided responses based on their knowledge and duties that are sufficient. Plaintiff's 

motion to compel further responses on the above interrogatories is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 24 to Bardonnex and No. 2 to Magana:

“Identify JOHN DOES #1 and 2 and JANE DOE #3, names, current status, and 

location. (Refer to Amended Complaint ¶¶s 8-9, pgs. 6-7). Provide information in 

detail.” 

Response to Interrogatory No. 24 to Bardonnex: 

Objection. The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and overly broad because it 

seeks information not related to Plaintiff’s claims of basic necessities/conditions of 

confinement. The interrogatory calls for speculation. The interrogatory seeks 

confidential information that: (1) may threaten the security of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the safety of its staff an inmates; 

(2) Plaintiff cannot possess this information, as it is confidential under title 15, 

sections 3321, 3450, subdivisions (d), (e) of the California Code of Regulations 

and not subject to disclosure under section 6254, subdivision (c) of the California 

Government Code, and protected by other individuals’ privacy rights, whose rights 

Defendants are without authority to waive. The interrogatory is compound and 

exceeds the limit of 25 interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. 33(a)(1). Without 

waiving objections, Responding Party answers: 

Responding Party lacks the requisite information to respond to this interrogatory.

Ruling:

This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to "current status, and location" that Plaintiff 

seeks pertaining to JOHN DOES #1 and #2 and JANE DOE #3, and Defendants objection based 

thereon is SUSTAINED. Further, this interrogatory is overly broad and not related to Plaintiff 

claims regarding the conditions of his confinement -- particularly because the deadline to amend 

the pleadings in this action to substitute the true names of the above DOES lapsed on August 30, 

2013. (See Doc. 34) Defendants' objection based thereon is SUSTAINED. Finally, to the extent 

that the "current status and location" of these DOES may encompass their personal residence, it 

seeks confidential information and Defendants' objection based thereon is SUSTAINED. 

Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses on the above interrogatories is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 23 to Cogdill and No. 22 to Bardonnex and Scaife: 

“Did you know and/or was aware that O.C. pepper spray, by law is declared a 

dangerous weapon which could/can cause serious injury.” 

Response by Cogill, Bardonnex, and Scaife:

Objection. The interrogatory is argumentative and lacks foundation assumes that 

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 5 of 20
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

“O.C. pepper spray, by law is declared a dangerous weapon which could/can cause 

serious injury.” The interrogatory exceeds the limit of 25 interrogatories under 

Fed. R. Civ. 33(a)(1). The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad as 

to time. The interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the claims and 

defenses at issue in this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence.

Ruling:

This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous and overly broad as to time and Defendants' 

objection thereon is SUSTAINED. Further, it is argumentative and lacks foundation as to what 

law Plaintiff is suggesting declared O.C. pepper spray to be a dangerous weapon and definition of 

"dangerous weapon" under that unknown law. Defendants’ objections thereon are SUSTAINED. 

Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses on the above interrogatories is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 16 to Cogdill, Davis, Scaife, and Quinones: 

“How long does CDCR allow you to spray a prisoner confined inside of his cell 

with O.C. pepper spray, before you must enter the cell and forcibly extract him. 

Please explain in detail.” 

Response by Cogdill, Davis, Scaife, and Quinones: 

Objection. The interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. The interrogatory calls for 

speculation and does not contain sufficient foundational facts on which to form an 

opinion. Without waiving objections Responding Party answers: 

There was no restriction or limit on the amount of chemical agent or number of 

bursts that could be introduced into a cell in 2007. Determination was based on 

incident commander’s assessment of how much chemical agent made contact with 

barricades versus the inmate, the inmate’s compliance, the presence of a weapon, 

and other security factors.

Ruling:

The responses provided by these Defendants, in spite of their stated objections, sufficiently 

and specifically responds to Plaintiff's interrogatory. Plaintiff's motion to compel further 

responses on the above interrogatories is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 17 to Cogdill, Davis, Scaife, and Quinones: 

“What are the names and CDCR numbers of the prisoners that were housed in cells 

26-30 in 4LEFT 4A Yard, same section and housing unit as plaintiff on September 

12, 2007. Explain in detail.” 

Response by Cogdill, Davis, Scaife, and Quinones: 

Objection. The request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. The request is 

overbroad seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this 

action and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request 

seeks disclosure of confidential information that: 1) may threaten the security of 

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 6 of 20
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

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the safety of its 

staff and inmates; 2) cannot be possessed by an inmate, as it is confidential under 

California Code of Regulations title 15, §§ 3321, 3450(d); 3) not subject to 

disclosure under California Government Code § 6254(c) and (f); and 4) protected 

by other individuals’ privacy rights, whose rights Responding Party is without 

authority to waive. The request confidential and private information protected 

under the United States Constitution, California Constitution, sections 832.7 and 

6126.3 of the California Penal Code, and sections 1043 and 1045 of the California 

Evidence Code. 

Ruling:

Defendants assert that inmates are not allowed to have full names and CDCR numbers for 

other inmates for safety and security reasons. (Doc. 127, 43:21-44:3.) The Court appreciates the 

security needs of the prison and inmates, as described by Defendants, precludes specific 

information about inmates generally, the Court disagrees that Plaintiff is not entitled to identify 

witnesses who may be helpful to his case. To the contrary, Plaintiff is entitled to determine the 

identities of those inmates he believes witnessed the events at issue. Here, however, Plaintiff 

makes no showing that these inmates witnessed the events or that Plaintiff has reason to believe

that they did. Thus, this request without a sufficient showing implicates all of the safety and 

security concerns set forth by Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further 

responses to the above interrogatories is DENIED. 

Interrogatory No. 18 to Cogdill and Scaife: 

“Where are the prisoners now located/housed who occupied cells 26-30 in 4LEFT 

4A Yard on September 12, 2007. Explain in detail.” 

Response by Cogdill and Scaife:

Objection. The request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. The request is 

overbroad seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this 

action and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request 

seeks disclosure of confidential information that: 1) may threaten the security of 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the safety of its 

staff and inmates; 2) cannot be possessed by an inmate, as it is confidential under 

California Code of Regulations title 15, §§ 3321, 3450(d); 3) not subject to 

disclosure under California Government Code § 6254(c) and (f); and 4) protected 

by other individuals’ privacy rights, whose rights Responding Party is without 

authority to waive. The request confidential and private information protected 

under the United States Constitution, California Constitution, sections 832.7 and 

6126.3 of the California Penal Code, and sections 1043 and 1045 of the California 

Evidence Code.

///

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 7 of 20
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

Ruling:

Defendants assert that inmates are not allowed to have full names and CDCR numbers for 

other inmates or their housing assignments for safety and security reasons. (Doc. 127, 43:21-

44:3.) The Court appreciates the security needs of the prison and inmates, as described by 

Defendants, precludes specific information about inmates generally, the Court disagrees that 

Plaintiff is not entitled to identify witnesses who may be helpful to his case. To the contrary, 

Plaintiff is entitled to determine the identities of those inmates he believes witnessed the events at 

issue. Here, however, Plaintiff makes no showing that these inmates witnessed the events or that 

Plaintiff has reason to believe that they did. Thus, unless and until there is a sufficient showing 

demonstrating these inmates witnessed the event, this request implicates all of the safety and 

security concerns set forth by Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further 

responses to the above interrogatories is DENIED. 

Interrogatory No. 23 to Davis, Scaife, and Quinones: 

“Is there a CDCR policy and/or instruction(s) on the use of each of the following 

items upon a prisoner; (1) MK-9 cannister(s); (2) MK-46 cannister; (3) Z-505 

fogger; and (4) T-16 blast dispersion grenades. Explain in detail.” 

Response by Davis, Scaife, and Quinones: 

Objection. The interrogatory is vague and unintelligible as to the term “a CDCR 

policy and/or instruction.” The interrogatory seeks confidential information, 

disclosure of which would jeopardize institutional security. The interrogatory 

seeks information not relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this action 

and not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 

waiving objections, Responding Party answers:

Ruling:

The interrogatory is vague. The Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is seeking 

information related to a “use of force” policy that governs when and how these devices may be 

employed or whether he seeks information on how to actually use these devices. Thus, based upon 

the ambiguity of the interrogatory, the objection is SUSTAINED. Clearly, if he is seeking 

information detailed instructions on how to use MK-9 cannisters, MK-46 cannisters, Z-505 

foggers, and T-16 blast dispersions grenades obviously would jeopardize institutional security. 

Defendants' objection based there on is SUSTAINED. Plaintiff's motion to compel further 

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 8 of 20
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

responses to the above interrogatories is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 19 to Davis and Quinones: 

“On September 12, 2007 approximately how long of a period of time did your 

subordinate officers spray plaintiff with the chemical agents, while he was housed 

inside cell #26. Please explain in detail.” 

Response by Davis and Quinones:

Objection. The interrogatory calls for speculation. The interrogatory is vague and 

ambiguous as to the term “how long of a period of time” did officers spray 

Plaintiff. Without waiving said objection, and assuming Plaintiff means the total 

amount of time O.C. pepper spray mixture was being actively deployed into 

Plaintiff’s cell, Responding Party answers:

Responding Party does not know, and the answer cannot be determined from the 

records.

Ruling:

While Plaintiff argues that this response is "evasive, unreasonable, vague, incomplete and 

perjured testimony" and that Defendants fail to disclose information required by the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, he does not state how the above response is deficient, nor does he show or 

even suggest what Defendants might do to ascertain the desired information beyond their own 

recollection and the records. Even if Davis was present at the incident as Plaintiff argues, Plaintiff 

does not show any basis he would have to estimate the length of time Plaintiff was sprayed. 

Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the response does not equate to an insufficient in the response. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to the above interrogatories is 

DENIED. 

Interrogatory No. 20 to Davis and Quinones: 

“At some point during plaintiff’s confinement to the management cell #26 in 1 

RIGHT 4A Yard did you pay him a visit and interview him concerning his 

complaint on his conditions of confinement. Please explain in detail.” 

Response by Davis and Quinones: 

Objection. The interrogatory is argumentative and lacks foundation in that is 

assumes Plaintiff was in a “management cell,” and that Plaintiff lodges “his 

complaint on his conditions of confinement.” The request is vague, ambiguous, 

and overly broad as to time. Without waiving objections, Responding Party 

answers: 

Responding Party does not recall, and without further details such as date, time, 

and nature of the complaint, the answer cannot be determined from the records.

Ruling:

Plaintiff also argues that this response is "incomplete, evasive, vague, and fails to disclose 

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 9 of 20
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

information required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)," but he does not state how the 

above response is deficient, nor does he show or even suggest what Defendants might do to 

ascertain the desired information beyond their own recollection and the records from the incident. 

Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the response does not equate to an insufficient in the response. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to the above interrogatories is 

DENIED. 

B. Individual Interrogatories to Bardonnex

Interrogatory No. 13: to Bardonnex 

“Do you have evidence and/or documentary evidence which shows plaintiff 

refused yard for six months during the period of September 12, 2007 thru January 

2008. Explain in detail.” 

Response: 

Objection. The interrogatory is argumentative and lacks foundation that it assumes 

that “plaintiff refused yard for six months during the period of September 12, 2007 

thru January 2008.” Without waving objections, Responding Party answers: 

The Inmate Segregation Record, CDC 114-A, records an inmate’s daily activity. 

Plaintiff refused yard exercise on 9/10/07, 9/14/07, 9/17/07, 1/19/07, 9/21/07, 

9/25/07, 9/26/07, 9/28/07, 10/2/07, 10/3/07, 10/5/07, 10/9/07, 10/17/07, 10/19/07, 

10/13/07, 1-/15/07, 10/26/07, 10/30/07, 11/13/07, 11/21/07, 11/24/07, 11/27/07, 

11/30/07, 12/5/07, 12/12/07, 12/14/07, 12/17/07, 12/25/07, and 12/26/07. Plaintiff 

participated in yard exercise on 11/2/07, 11/6/07, 11/15/07, 11/16/07, 11/29/07, 

12/6/07, 12/21/07, 12/22/07, 12/18/07, 12/19/10, and 12/28/07. 

Ruling:

Plaintiff asserts that the above information is inaccurate and/or perjured and cites a number 

of documents that he asserts show that various of the above days he did not refuse yard. However, 

discrepancies between facts and evidence is not a basis to compel a further response or to attempt 

to force an opposing party to change a response to propounded discovery; rather, it is fodder for 

Plaintiff to attempt to impeach a witness or to contradict testimony thereon at trial and/or 

dispositive motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to the above 

interrogatory is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 14 to Bardonnex: 

“Did any of your superiors tell you at any time plaintiff was on any typd [sic] of 

yard restriction during the period of September 12, 2007 thru October 26, 2007. 

Explain in detail.” 

Response: 

Responding Party does not recall what, if anything, his superiors told him 

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 10 of 20
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

regarding Plaintiff’s yard privileges during the period of September 12, 2007 thru 

October 26, 2007. A chrono in Plaintiff’s C-file, dated September 13, 2007, states: 

“On 9-13-07, inmate Jacobs refused to make a personal appearance before this 

Senior Hearing Officer (SHO) for Adjudication Disposition of Rules Violation 

Report CDC 115, Log # 4A4-07-08-15. Subject was subsequently found Guilty 

and assessed TEN (10) DAYS Confined to Quarters (CTQ) commencing on 09-13-

07 through 09-23-07.”

Ruling:

Again, Plaintiff asserts that the above information is inaccurate and/or perjured and cites a 

number of documents that he asserts show that various of the above days he did not refuse yard. 

However, discrepancies between facts and evidence is not a basis to compel a further response or 

to attempt to force an opposing party to change a response to propounded discovery; rather, it is 

fodder for Plaintiff to attempt to impeach a witness or to contradict testimony thereon at trial 

and/or dispositive motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to the above 

interrogatory is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 18 to Bardonnex: 

“Did you issue plaintiff any property or supplies while he was housed in cell #26, 

4A 1 RIGHT during the time period from September 12, 2007 thru October 26, 

2007. Explain in detail.” 

Response: 

Responding Party does not recall. But cleaning and personal hygiene supplies were 

provided on a weekly basis during this time period, and Plaintiff’s segregation 

records show that supplies were issued.

Ruling:

Again, Plaintiff asserts that the above information is inaccurate and/or perjured and cites a 

number of documents that he asserts show that various of the above days he did not refuse yard. 

However, discrepancies between facts and evidence is not a basis to compel a further response or 

to attempt to force an opposing party to change a response to propounded discovery; rather, it is 

fodder for Plaintiff to attempt to impeach a witness or to contradict testimony thereon at trial 

and/or dispositive motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to the above 

interrogatory is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 20 to Bardonnex: 

“Have you been investigated for denying prisoners access to the recreation yard in 

the past 10 years. Explain in detail.” 

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 11 of 20
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

Response to Interrogatory No. 20 to Bardonnex: 

Objection. The interrogatory is not relevant to the claims and defenses involved in 

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

evidence. The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. The 

interrogatory is compound and exceeds the limit of 25 interrogatories under Fed. 

R. Civ. 33(a)(1). Without waiving objections, Responding Party answers: 

Responding Party has never been found responsible for denying prisoners yard 

access.

Ruling:

As was previously addressed in the motion to quash Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum, 

evidence of unsubstantiated/unfounded accusations against any of the Defendants in this action are 

unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are thus irrelevant to this action. (See

Doc. 103, at 7:16-8:9.) Bardonnex's response to this interrogatory parallels that finding. Plaintiff 

fails to show any use for any unfounded accusations against Bardonnex other than as inadmissible 

character evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to the above 

interrogatory is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 25 to Bardonnex: 

“How long are guards allowed to be assigned to the same post assignment and/or 

housing unit consecutively. Explain in detail.” 

Response by Bardonnex: 

Objection. The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and overly broad because it 

seeks information not related to Plaintiff’s claims of basic necessities/conditions of 

confinement and seeks information not relevant to the claims and defenses at issue 

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

evidence. The interrogatory is compound and exceeds the limit of 25 

interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. 33(a)(1). Without waiving and objections, 

Responding Party answers: 

Responding Party is unaware of any such time limits to post assignments.

Ruling:

Plaintiff does not show that this interrogatory is related to his claims in this action. His 

displeasure with the response given subsequent to the objections will not suffice. Bardonnex has 

provided a response delineating the information of which he is aware that is responsive to 

Plaintiff's request and Plaintiff fails to show that any of his objections are not justified. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to the above interrogatory is DENIED.

///

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 12 of 20
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

C. Individual Interrogatories to Cogdill

Interrogatory No. 4 to Cogdill: 

“Do you have other pending lawsuits against you filed by prisoners or any free 

person for use of excessive force, assault & battery, or retaliation.” 

Response by Cogdill: 

Objection. The interrogatory is not relevant to the claims and defenses involved in 

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

evidence. The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Without 

waiving objections, Responding Party answers: 

Not applicable. 

Interrogatory No. 5 to Cogdill:

“If your answer is yes to the preceding interrogatory request (Rog #4), please 

explain in detail and/or attach documentation which explain/detail the 

circumstances of these events.” 

Response by Cogdill: 

Objection. The interrogatory is not relevant to the claims and defenses involved in 

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

evidence. The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Without 

waiving objections, Responding Party answers: 

Not applicable.

Ruling on No. 4 & No. 5:

Cogdill indicates that he intended to respond "No" to No. 4 rather than "Not applicable" 

and that he served a supplemental response correcting this error and asserting that this negated the 

need for further response to be compelled. Plaintiff does not address this in his reply and so 

appears to agree by his silence. In any event, No. 4 requested a yes or no response. Once the 

negative response was given, No. 5 was not applicable since it sought information based on an 

affirmative response to No. 4. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses from 

Cogdill to No. 4 and No. 5 is DENIED.

C. Defendant Davis

Interrogatory No. 18 to Davis: 

“On September 12, 2007 during the use of force extraction of plaintiff, were you in 

a position to visually see how much chemicals your subordinate officers were 

spraying plaintiff with. Please explain.” 

Response: 

Objection. The interrogatory is argumentative and lacks foundation in that it 

assumes “a use of force extraction of Plaintiff.” Responding Party was the 

Administrate Officer of the Day (AOD) and did not directly participate in or 

witness the occurrences at Plaintiff’s cell on September 12, 2007.

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 13 of 20
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

Ruling:

Plaintiff does not show that Defendant's objection is not justified. As previously stated, the 

fact that Plaintiff feels evidence exists to contradict Davis' response is material he may be able to 

use to question Davis' credibility or for impeachment purposes, but it does not provide justification 

to require a Defendant to change a response that he feels is truthful. Accordingly, Plaintiff's 

motion to compel further response to the above interrogatory is DENIED. 

D. Defendant Magana

Interrogatory No. 1 to Magana: 

“Where can the initial search slip for cell #26 in 4A 1RIGHT Building be located. 

(Refer to Request for Admission, Set One, nos 73&79. Explain in detail.” 

Response to Interrogatory No. 1 to Magana: 

Objection. The interrogatory as phrased cannot be answered because Defendant 

has not responded to Requests for Admissions 73 and 79 under the Court’s May 

16, 2014 Order (ECF No. 61.) The interrogatory is not relevant to the claims and 

defenses involved in this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and 

overly broad as to date. The request is argumentative in that it assumes the 

existence of an “initial search slip for cell #26 in 4A 1RIGHT.” The interrogatory 

lacks foundation. Without waiving objections, Responding Party answers: Cell 

search slips are kept in Plaintiff’s 114-a file, within Plaintiff’s C-File, which is 

equally available to Plaintiff.

Ruling:

Plaintiff shows nothing other than his disagreement with Magana's response. This is 

insufficient to show that his response is evasive or incomplete. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). This is 

yet more fodder for Plaintiff to attack the Defendants' assertions and positions at trial and/or on 

dispositive motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel a further response from Magana to 

the above interrogatory is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 21 to Magana: 

“During September 12, 2007-October 26, 2007 did you see any guards/coworkers issue plaintiff any property or state supplies whatsoever while he was 

housed in cell #26.” 

Response: 

Yes. Plaintiff was issued supplies and clothing during his stay in cell #26.

Ruling:

Plaintiff argues that "evasive objections cannot be treated with favor" and that "Defendant 

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 14 of 20
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

must answer truthfully and to the full extent possible." (Doc. 107, 25:12-15.) This appears to be 

exactly what Magana has done. In fact, Magana's response went beyond that required since No. 

21 required only an affirmative, or negative answer. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel a 

further response from Magana to this interrogatory is DENIED. 

E. Defendant Pratt

Interrogatory No. 13 to Pratt: 

“What were your specific duties while assigned to the 4A Yard SHU as psych tech. 

Explain in detail.” 

Response: 

Objection. The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Without 

waiving objections, Responding Party answers: 

Responding Party conducted daily rounds and documented the mental health of 

inmates. Defendant also provided documentation on medication monitoring, 

ADLS, suicidality, dangerousness, and grave disability. Responding Party further 

provided crisis evaluation and intervention, mental health crisis bed five-day 

follow-up. Responding Party also participated in the Interdisciplinary Treatment 

Team, attended staff meetings, and attended other departmental training.

Ruling: 

Plaintiff argues that this response is deficient and incomplete and that Pratt cannot respond 

that she is unable to respond because she lacks knowledge. (Doc. 107, 26:18-27:3.) However, this 

argument does not apply to Pratt's response. Pratt provided a straightforward answer as to her 

duties while assigned to the 4A Yard SHU as psych tech. Plaintiff's argument that this response is 

somehow deficient is wholly without merit. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel a further 

response to the above interrogatory is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 9 to Pratt: 

“Explain the difference between management cell status and disciplinary detention 

status.” 

Response: 

Objection. The interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to the claims 

and defenses at issue in this action and not reasonably calculated to the discovery 

of admissible evidence. Without waiving objections, Responding Party answers: 

Responding Party lacks the requisite knowledge to respond to this request because 

it is not within the scope of her duties. 

Ruling:

Here again Plaintiff argues that this response is deficient and incomplete and that Pratt 

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 15 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 16

cannot respond that she is unable to respond because she lacks knowledge and/or the question calls 

for information beyond her job duties. (Doc. 107, 26:18-27:3.) There is no showing that a psych

tech is in a position to know about management cells versus disciplinary status and she denies she 

has this knowledge. Plaintiff fails to show that Pratt's objections are not justified. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff's motion to compel a further response to the above interrogatory is DENIED. 

Interrogatory No. 15 to Pratt: 

“Why are mental health prisoner(s) forced to live and sleep in SHU cells with the 

cell light on 24 hrs a day. Explain in detail.” 

Response: 

Objection. The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. The 

interrogatory seeks information not relevant to claims and defenses at issue in the 

action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. The interrogatory lacks foundation and is argumentative because it 

assumes that “mental health prisoner(s) forced to live and sleep in SHU cells with 

the cell light on 24 hrs a day.” The interrogatory is compound and calls for 

speculation. Without waiving objections, Responding Party answers: 

Responding Party lacks the requisite knowledge to respond to this request because 

it is not within the scope of her duties.

Ruling: 

Here again Plaintiff argues that this response is deficient and incomplete and that Pratt 

cannot state that she is unable to respond because she lacks knowledge and/or the question calls 

for information beyond her job duties. (Doc. 107, 26:18-27:3.) There is no showing that a psych 

tech is in a position to know about the lighting in SHU cells and she denies she has this 

knowledge. Plaintiff fails to show that Pratt's objections are not justified and/or that she has 

responsive information within her possession, custody, and/or control. However, Magana's 

response to Interrogatory No. 2 indicates that "the SHU housing unit is designed for inmates who 

require a higher level of safety and security. The inmates housed in SHU are of higher rise, and 

are prohibited from controlling their lights for safety and security reasons." Further, Magana's 

response to Interrogatory No. 16 indicates that bright lights are on from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 

and that "night lights" are on from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Thus, Plaintiff has received a sufficient 

response to this interrogatory from another Defendant with applicable knowledge. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff's motion to compel a further response to the above interrogatory is DENIED. 

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 16 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 17

Interrogatory No. 16 to Pratt: 

“Does living in a small cell with a light on 24 hrs a day seven days a week cause 

sleep deprivation and/or sensor/deprivation. Explain in detail.” 

Response: 

Objection. The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. The 

interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in 

the action and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The 

interrogatory lacks foundation and is argumentative because it assumes facts not in 

evidence: that a light is on “24 hrs a day seven days a week.” The interrogatory 

calls for speculation and does not contain sufficient facts for Responding Party to 

answer.

Ruling:

This interrogatory is argumentative and lacks foundation as it presumes that a normal light 

is on 24/7. Plaintiff fails to show that this is inaccurate or evasive; rather, he asserts that it is 

deficient and incomplete without providing a factual basis for the assertions. Plaintiff also fails to 

address Plaintiff's objections and thus fails to show that they are not justified. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to the above interrogatory is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 17 to Pratt: 

“Is it unusual for a mental health prisoner confined to a disciplinary detention 

cell denied drinking water for his/her during in such a cell. Explain in detail.” 

Response: 

Objection. The interrogatory is argumentative and lacks foundation because it 

assumes “a mental health prisoner is confined to a disciplinary detention cell 

denied drinking water.” The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and 

unintelligible. The interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the claims and 

defenses at issue in this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. The interrogatory calls for speculation. 

Interrogatory No. 18 to Pratt: 

“Is it unusual for a mental health prisoner confined to a disciplinary detention 

cell denied drinking water for his/her duration in such a cell. Explain in detail.” 

Response: 

Objection. The interrogatory is argumentative and lacks foundation because it 

assumes “a mental health prisoner is confined to a disciplinary detention cell 

denied drinking water.” The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and 

unintelligible. The interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the claims and 

defenses at issue in this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. The interrogatory calls for speculation and 

contains insufficient facts to render an opinion.

///

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 17 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 18

 Ruling:

Plaintiff's allegations regarding ready access to drinking water while on management cell 

were dismissed on screening. Interrogatory No. 17 and No. 18 seek information that is not 

relevant to this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to the above 

interrogatories is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 19 To Pratt: 

“Why are prisoners housed in the Corcoran SHU cells prohibited from turning 

their cell light on or off. Explain in detail.” 

Response: 

Objection. The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and overly broad. The 

interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in 

this action and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The 

interrogatory is argumentative and lacks foundation because it assumes that 

“prisoners housed in the Corcoran SHU cells prohibited from turning their cell 

light on or off.” The interrogatory calls for speculation. Without waiving 

objections, Responding Party answers: 

Responding Party lacks the requisite knowledge to respond to this request 

because it is not within the scope of her duties.

Interrogatory No. 20 to Pratt: 

“Isn’t prohibiting a mental health prisoner from turning his cell light off to sleep 

against the Mental Health Department policy. Explain in detail.” 

Response: 

Objection. The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and overly broad. The 

interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in 

this action and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The 

interrogatory is argumentative and lacks foundation because it assumes that 

“mental health prisoners are prohibited from turning their cell light on or off.” 

The interrogatory calls for speculation. Without waiving objections, Responding 

Party answers: 

Responding Party lacks the requisite knowledge to respond to this request 

because it is not within the scope of her duties

Ruling:

Plaintiff fails to show that Defendants objection that Plaintiff is seeking information that is 

not relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this action and not likely to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence is not justified. The issue in this action is not whether Plaintiff should 

have had a switch to control the lighting in his cell, but rather whether he was exposed to lighting 

that as a condition of his confinement that violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. 

Further, Magana's response to No. 3 indicates that inmates in SHU housing require a higher level 

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 18 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 19

of safety and security and they are prohibited from controlling their lights for safety and security 

concerns. Thus, Plaintiff has applicable information from an appropriate source. On the other 

hand, Defendant denies she has this knowledge. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further 

responses to these interrogatories is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 23 to Pratt: 

“Within that time frame you were assigned to the 4A Yard SHU, how many 

times did you visit plaintiff in cell #26 4A-1 RIGHT Building during the rounds 

of September 2007- November 1, 2007. Explain in detail.” 

Response to Interrogatory No. 23 to Pratt: 

Objection. The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and overly broad. The 

interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the claims and defenses at issue 

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

evidence. Without waiving objections, Responding Party answers: 

Responding Party does not recall.

Ruling:

The number of times Pratt, as medical personnel, visited Plaintiff's cell during the listed 

time frame is relevant to Pratt's knowledge of the conditions of Plaintiff's confinement, which is at 

the heart of Plaintiff's claim against Pratt. Further, the number of visit is something that Pratt, as 

medical personnel should have noted on a medical chart/record which she should use to refresh her 

recollection rather than going by sheer memory. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further 

response to this interrogatory is GRANTED. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, 

Pratt is to serve a response listing the dates and purposes of her visits to Plaintiff's cell for medical 

purposes between September 1, 2007 and November 1, 2007. 

III. Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff requests imposition of sanctions for improper discovery conduct/abuses in this 

motion and by separate motion, filed on December 15, 2015. (Doc. 115.) Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37(a)(5) prohibits the imposition of sanctions if the opposing party's nondisclosure, 

response, or objection was substantially justified, or if other circumstances exist to make the 

imposition of sanctions unjust. Plaintiff makes little showing as to the basis upon which he seeks 

sanctions other than his displeasure with the responses he received to his propounded discovery. 

Just because discovery disputes arose does not justify imposition of sanctions. Defendants'

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 19 of 20
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 20

responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests were substantially justified -- as is particularly evident 

by the fact that the majority of Plaintiff's motion to compel is being denied. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff=s requests for sanctions -- both in this present motion and in the motion he filed on 

December 15, 2015 -- are DENIED.

VI. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and for sanctions, filed 

on December 5, 2014 (Doc. 107), is GRANTED and DENIED as discussed in 

detail in this order; 

(2) all further responses as ordered herein are to be served on Plaintiff within 30 days of 

the date of service of this order; and

(3) Plaintiff's motion for sanctions, both in his motion to compel further responses to 

interrogatories and in his motion for sanctions filed on December 15, 2015 (Doc. 

115) are DENIED.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/12/15 Page 20 of 20