Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00366/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00366-5/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Spencer E. Berry,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0366 GEB PAN P

vs. Order

Cheryl K. Pliler, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, prosecuting this

civil rights action on the claim defendants Burciaga, Pliler,

Rosario and Vance were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s

safety. Plaintiff alleges all defendants knew of recent,

escalating attacks with prison-made weapons between hispanic and 

white prisoners and that a security door between two sections of 

the prison did not lock properly. When Burciaga released

plaintiff to the shower, two hispanic prisoners entered the

shower area through the unlocked door and attacked plaintiff, 

stabbing him repeatedly. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(2)(B), plaintiff moves to compel defendants to respond to

requests for production of documents. Defendants filed no

opposition.

Case 2:04-cv-00366-GEB-EFB Document 54 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 4
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

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not

privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any 

party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information sought need not be

admissible at trial if the discovery is reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. The court may

limit discovery if it determines the discovery sought is

unreasonably cumulative or obtainable from a more convenient or

less expensive source, the party seeking discovery had ample

opportunity to obtain the information sought, or the burden or

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). A party has a continuing duty to

supplement, correct or amend discovery responses if the court so

orders or if the party learns the responses were in some material

respect incorrect or incomplete and the information has not

otherwise been made available to other parties. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(e)(2).

Any party may request any other party produce for inspection 

documents including writings, drawings, graphs, charts or data

compilations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). The requesting party must

identify the items to be produced and the party upon whom the

request is made must make a written response stating that

inspection will be permitted as requested, unless the party 

objects and states the basis therefor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).

A party may move for an order compelling discovery with

respect to objections or other failure to respond to

interrogatories or requests to produce documents. Fed. R. Civ.

Case 2:04-cv-00366-GEB-EFB Document 54 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 4
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

P. 37(a)(2)(B), 33(b)(5), 34(b). 

Plaintiff requested “[c]opies of the 24 digital photographs

C.O. R. Mendoza (Badge # 32616) took of the crime scene, wich

[sic] were downloaded into the I.S.U. computer under report #SACFAB-02-12-0601 and were not provided in the incident report

received from the defendants [sic] counsel upon a previous

request for production of documents (see: Request No. 1).”

Defendants promised to send plaintiff copies as soon as they

were made. Plaintiff asserts he never received the photographs. 

Plaintiff has not shown how the photographs are relevant to

resolving disputed facts and, therefore, his motion to compel

production of the photographs for inspection and copying is

denied. 

Plaintiff requested “copies of repair sheets for all of

Facility B cell blocks, reflecting repairs to all doors for the

entire year of 2002.”

Defendants produced the following documents: (1) maintenance

work order # 71828 issued December 16, 2002; (2) maintenance work

order # 71827 issued December 16, 2002; (3) list of work

requested and completed for December 2002, February 2003,

September 2003 and October 2003. 

Plaintiff asserts defendants produced documents they already

provided and did not produce the actual maintenance work orders

itemized in the list defendants produced.

Defendants must produce the work maintenance orders for

February 2003, September 2003 and October 2003 only for the door

Case 2:04-cv-00366-GEB-EFB Document 54 Filed 11/30/05 Page 3 of 4
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 Discovery closed May 27, 2005. Plaintiff’s motion is timely because

he served it May 25, 2005. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

4

in question.

For these reasons, plaintiff’s June 6, 2005,1 motion is

granted in part and denied in part. Defendants have 30 days to

respond to plaintiff’s requests as provided in this order.

So ordered.

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00366-GEB-EFB Document 54 Filed 11/30/05 Page 4 of 4