Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01362/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01362-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HACKWORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. AREVALOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01362-DAD-BAK (EPG) (PC)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

(ECF No. 62)

Plaintiff Robert Hackworth has filed a pleading captioned a “Motion of Objection to the 

Defendant Denial of Plaintiff Request of Production of Documents Set One,” which the Court 

construes as a motion to compel. (ECF No. 62.) Defendants filed a response in opposition. 

(ECF No. 64.)

Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ denials that the requests were 

[v]ague and ambiguous . . . overly broad and unduly burdensome/irrelevant 

information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence: seeks inadmissible character evidence. . . . Defendant’s personnel files 

call for information protected by [California law]. The [re]quest also seeks 

information that may contain confidential and private information about other 

inmates’ medical conditions, custody classifications, and other sensitive 

information the disclosure of which would create a hazard to the safety and 

security of the institution and violate the inmate’s rights to privacy and 

confidentiality and this request seeks documents that are irrelevant to any claim 

or defense in this action and are unlikely to contain admissible evidence.

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 73 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 3
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

(ECF No. 62 at 1–2.) Plaintiff argues that the request for production of documents was

reasonable, sought nonprivileged information, was relevant to a claim or defense, shows a 

pattern of wrongdoing, and is not unduly burdensome. Plaintiff adds that any confidential 

information can be subject to a protective order. (Id. at 2.)

A party may serve on any other party a request to produce documents, electronically 

stored information, or tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). If a party fails to produce requested 

documents, the party seeking discovery may file a motion to compel a response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(3)(B). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a 

failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The moving party must “state 

the relief sought” and provide “with particularity the grounds for seeking” the relief. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 7(b)(1). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating “actual and substantial 

prejudice” from the denial of discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 

2002) (citations omitted). 

The Court does not hold prisoners proceeding pro se to the same standards that it holds 

attorneys. Waterbury v. Scribner, No. 1:05-cv-0764 OWW DLB PC, 2008 WL 2018432, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. May 8, 2008). However, Plaintiff has the burden to inform the Court (1) which 

discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are 

disputed, (3) why the party believes the response is deficient, (4) why any objections are not 

justified, and (5) why the information sought through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of 

this action. Wilkins v. Macomber, No. 2:16-CV-0475-TLN-DMC-P, 2022 WL 428965, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2022) (citing McCoy v. Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv-1808-MJS (PC), 2016 WL 

3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016)); Ransom v. Marquez, No. 1:10-cv-00397-AWI, 2015 

WL 1011706, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2015).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of 

the motion to compel and which of the responses are disputed. Plaintiff’s production requests 

and Defendants’ responses are neither set forth within the motion nor submitted as an 

attachment. Because of this, the Court is unable to assess the relevance of the discovery sought 

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 73 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 3
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

or the sufficiency of Defendants’ responses. Additionally, Plaintiff has not demonstrated actual 

and substantial prejudice from the denial of discovery. 

Should Plaintiff continue to seek this discovery, he is granted leave to refile, within 

thirty (30) days, a renewed motion that provides the information discussed above.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 62)

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 73 Filed 03/09/22 Page 3 of 3