Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02518/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02518-7/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

LAWRENCE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2518 FCD DAD P

vs.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to the excessive use of force and denied

medical care while incarcerated at the Sacramento County Main Jail. Before the court are

plaintiff’s request for leave to serve additional interrogatories and motion to compel production

of documents.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed his civil rights complaint on December 3, 2003. On March 25,

2004, the court dismissed the complaint and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 

The amended complaint was filed on April 22, 2004. On July 1, 2004, the court determined that

service of the amended complaint was appropriate with respect to defendants Officer Dickerson,

Case 2:03-cv-02518-DAD Document 90 Filed 02/26/07 Page 1 of 7
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

Correctional Officer Douglas, Correctional Officer Bacoch, Sergeant Zwolinski, Sergeant

Murray, Sergeant Johnson, and Lieutenant Powell. Defendants filed their answers on September

24, 2004 and September 28, 2004. On October 12, 2004, the court filed its discovery order and

on March 13, 2006, the court filed its scheduling order setting July 7, 2006 as the deadline for

completion of all discovery. The court also informed the parties that requests for discovery had

to be served no later than sixty days prior to the close of discovery date. 

There have been several discovery disputes brought before the court. On March 3,

2006, the court issued the following order: (1) plaintiff’s March 2, 2005 motion to compel the

production of documents was denied because the request was not directed to a specific

defendant; (2) plaintiff’s July 25, 2005 request to quash defendants’ subpoena directed to the

litigation coordinator was denied as moot; (3) plaintiff’s July 27, 2005 motion to compel

production of documents was granted in part and defendants were ordered to produce the

contents of an internal affairs file; and (4) defendants’ August 17, 2005 motion to quash

plaintiff’s subpoena served on an Internal Affairs officer was granted. On April 7, 2006, the

court denied plaintiff’s March 30, 2006 discovery motion as premature because plaintiff had not

served his discovery request on the defendant in question. In that same order, the court denied

without prejudice, plaintiff’s March 30, 2006 request for leave to serve additional interrogatories

on defendants. Plaintiff was advised that he needed to submit a copy of his proposed additional

interrogatories in order for the court to consider and rule on his request. 

II. Request to Serve Additional Interrogatories

Following the court’s April 7, 2006 order, plaintiff renewed his request to serve

additional interrogatories. His proposed interrogatories include: Twenty-eight interrogatories

directed to defendant Johnson, thirteen interrogatories for defendant Murray, nine interrogatories

for defendant Powell, twenty-eight interrogatories directed to defendant Douglas, twenty-three

interrogatories directed to defendant Dickerson, twenty-eight interrogatories directed to

defendant Zwolinski, and twenty-five interrogatories directed to defendant Bacoch. (Pl.’s

Case 2:03-cv-02518-DAD Document 90 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 7
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

Special Interrogatories, filed 5/3/06.) On May 11, 2006, the court ordered defendants to file their

opposition or statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s request. 

Defendants filed their opposition on June 9, 2006, asserting that plaintiff has

failed to make a particularized showing why additional interrogatories are necessary. Defendants

argue that the majority of plaintiff’s interrogatories seek information duplicative of documents

already in plaintiff’s possession. Pursuant to the court’s March 3, 2006 order, defendants argue

that they provided plaintiff with internal affairs file 03-IA-67 which consisted of 247 pages of

reports and employee histories of defendant Zwolinski and Dickerson, and transcripts of

interviews by investigators with defendants Bacoch, Dickerson, Douglas, and Zwolinski

concerning the May 11, 2003 incident at issue in this action. As to plaintiff’s interrogatories

seeking identification of inmates who were involved in the incident, defendants argue that on

March 21, 2006, in response to plaintiff’s request for production of documents set two, defendant

Zwolinski produced all incident reports (134 pages) for each inmate involved in the May 11

incident. Lastly, defendants acknowledge that defendants Murray, Johnson, and Powell were not

interviewed as part of the internal affairs investigation and that they did not provide statements. 

Thus, defendants essentially concede that interrogatories 1, 2, 7 through 13 for defendant

Murray; interrogatories 1 through 5, and 12 through 25 for defendant Johnson; and

interrogatories 1 through 9 for defendant Powell do not seek information duplicative of that 

provided by the defendants in documents previously produced.

In his reply, plaintiff argues that the additional interrogatories are necessary

because defendant Johnson provided “evasive” or incomplete responses to three interrogatories

from the first set of interrogatories. (Reply at 2-3.) Plaintiff also argues that defendants have

failed to carry their burden of proving that all the proposed interrogatories are duplicative or that

plaintiff has documents in his possession that provide the information responsive to the proposed

interrogatories. (Id. at 3.) However, plaintiff acknowledges that interrogatories interrogatories 3,

4, and 5 for defendant Murray; interrogatories 3 and 5 for defendant Johnson; interrogatories 7,

Case 2:03-cv-02518-DAD Document 90 Filed 02/26/07 Page 3 of 7
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

10, and 17 for defendant Douglas; interrogatories 11, 25 and 26 for defendant Zwolinski;

interrogatory 5 for defendant Bacoch; and interrogatory 5 for defendant Dickerson are

duplicative. (Id. at 3-4.) Lastly, plaintiff argues that although incident reports for the inmates

who had refused to lock down were produced by defendants, plaintiff has not been able to locate

the inmate witnesses because defendants have failed to provide addresses which were requested

in an earlier interrogatory.

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that

additional interrogatories are needed and that the information he seeks is not duplicative of that

already provided. According to Rule 26(b)(2), discovery may be limited if the discovery sought

“is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less

expensive.” Defendants contend that hundreds of pages of documents have been produced from

the Internal Affairs investigation, as well as, incident reports. Plaintiff fails to explain what

information he seeks that is not provided in those documents. In addition, the court is not

persuaded by plaintiff’s argument that defendants have failed to provide adequate responses to

earlier discovery requests. If plaintiff was dissatisfied with responses to his discovery requests,

the appropriate remedy would have been to file a timely motion to compel. Plaintiff’s

dissatisfaction with prior discovery responses does not provide a basis for seeking leave to serve

additional interrogatories. 

Despite the deficiencies with plaintiff’s request for leave to serve additional

interrogatories, the court will order defendants to respond to those additional interrogatories that

the defendants’ concede are not duplicative of prior discovery requets..

III. Motion to Compel Production of Documents

In this motion, plaintiff seeks to compel further production of documents and

responses to interrogatories. First, plaintiff contends that defendant Zwolinski failed to produce

documents that were requested in set two of his request for production of documents served on

April 14, 2006. The dispute concerns request number one.

Case 2:03-cv-02518-DAD Document 90 Filed 02/26/07 Page 4 of 7
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

Request for Production of Documents No. 1

All documents showing each NAME of every inmate recorded by

deputies concerning the refusal of inmates to lock down on May

11, 2003, the X-REF number, and last known LOCATION or

HOUSING.

Response to Request for Production of Documents No. 1

 Objection. Responding party objects to this Request on the

grounds that it is compound, vague, ambiguous, overbroad, calls

for the disclosure of private information of third parties and seeks

documents wholly irrelevant to the allegations set forth in the

complaint.

 Without waiving the foregoing objections responding party

shall produce all responsive documents in his possession custody

or control which have not previously been produced. See enclosed

documents Bates Stamped 000034 through 000138.

(Mot. to Compel, filed 6/16/06, Ex. A (Sgt. Zwolinski Response to Pl.’s Req. for Product. of

Docs, Set Two), at 2.) Plaintiff contends that inmates Ricky Lawson, Branko Majsteoric,

Anthony Weaver, Sherman Moore, and Maurice Kenney were eye-witnesses to the events at

issue in this case and that their arrest records and charge sheets are public information and not

privileged. Plaintiff argues that defendant should be ordered to identify the correctional facility

where each of these inmate was transferred to or inform plaintiff that the inmate has been

released from custody. In their opposition to the motion to compel, filed on June 30, 2006,

defendants assert that defendant Zwolinski produced some 134 pages of incident reports. 

Although the reports may not contain the inmates’ current addresses, defendants argue that they

produced what was requested and should not have to conduct discovery which plaintiff can

conduct himself. The court is not persuaded that defendant Zwolinski’s production of documents

was incomplete or evasive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). Plaintiff’s request was vague and overly

broad. The court agrees with defendants that plaintiff did not request documents which would

include the current addresses of the inmates whom plaintiff claims were eye-witness. 

Furthermore, plaintiff has not demonstrated that such information was within the possession,

custody or control of defendant Zwolinski. Finally, the court cannot determine whether the

Case 2:03-cv-02518-DAD Document 90 Filed 02/26/07 Page 5 of 7
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

documents produced were incomplete since plaintiff failed to attach copies of the produced

documents to his motion. See Local Rule 34-250(c). 

Next, plaintiff contends that defendant Powell and Dickerson failed to respond to

his request for production of documents, served on May 4, 2006. The discovery document was

titled, “Notice Of Motion And Motion For Production Of Documents Of Lt. Powell And Deputy

Dickerson.” (Id., Ex. B.) Plaintiff asserts that the discovery request was served prior to the May

8, 2006, deadline for completing discovery. Defendants Powell and Dickerson contend that

plaintiff served a “motion” for production of documents, not an appropriate request for

production of documents. The court agrees. Plaintiff’s motion contains the following language:

 YOU ARE HEREBY BY [sic] GIVEN NOTICE that plaintiff

herein request the production of the police records of the officer(s)

named as follows: Lt. Glenn Powell and Deputy Stephen

Dickerson.

 Plaintiff seek[s] the work complaint history of each defendent

[sic] named herein.

 . . . .

 Based on the information contained herein, plaintiff is entitled

to the requested discovery and ask that the court grant plaintiff’s

motion, ordering defendents [sic] to release the requested

documents. . . .

(MTC, Ex. B at 1-2.) In this regard, plaintiff failed to serve a proper discovery request on

defendants. The court previously informed plaintiff that he needed to serve his discovery

requests on the defendants and that a motion to the court for permission to conduct discovery was

unnecessary. See Orders, filed 12/3/04 and 4/7/06. Even if the court were to construe plaintiff’s

motion as a request for the production of documents, plaintiff’s request for “work complaint

history” is overly broad and vague. 

Plaintiff’s final argument in his motion to compel concerns the court’s May 11,

2006 order requiring defendants to file within thirty days from the service of the order, an

opposition or notice of non-opposition to plaintiff’s May 3, 2006 request for leave to serve

defendants with additional interrogatories. Plaintiff contends that defendants failed to comply

Case 2:03-cv-02518-DAD Document 90 Filed 02/26/07 Page 6 of 7
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

with the court’s order. Court records indicate that defendants filed their opposition on June 9,

2006. The opposition was timely filed; therefore, plaintiff’s argument in this regard is without

merit. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s May 3, 2006 request for leave to serve additional interrogatories is

granted in part;

2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, defendants Murray, Johnson

and Powell shall respond to the following special interrogatories, served on May 3, 2006:

a. Defendant Murray: Special interrogatories nos. 1, 2, 7 through 13

b. Defendant Johnson: Special interrogatories nos. 1, 2, 4, 12 through 28

c. Defendant Powell: Special interrogatories nos. 1 though 9;

3. Within fifteen days from the service of responses to the special interrogatories,

plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition to the September 1, 2006 motion for summary

judgment/adjudication of issues filed by defendants Bacoch, Dickerson, Douglas and Murray;

and

4. Plaintiff’s June 16, 2006 motion to compel production of documents by

defendants Zwolinski, Powell and Dickerson is denied.

DATED: February 26, 2007.

DAD:4

will2518.mtc

Case 2:03-cv-02518-DAD Document 90 Filed 02/26/07 Page 7 of 7