Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05407/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05407-8/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

STEVEN JOSEPH NOBLE III,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.ADAMS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5407 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY (Doc. 61) 

Steven Joseph Noble (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 31, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel discovery. 

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to compel the production of documents he requested on November

29, 2005. In addition, Plaintiff seeks to compel responses by Defendant Adams to his First Set of

Requests for Admission Nos. 14-15, 20-24, and his First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-8, 11-12,

and 15-18. 

On May 24, 2006, Defendant filed Objections to the Motion to Compel. Plaintiff filed a

Reply to the Objections on July 11, 2006. 

A. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Pursuant to Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “any party may serve on

any other party a request to produce and permit the party making the request . . . to inspect and

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 78 Filed 10/24/06 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

27

28 The Court Order states specifically that Defendant was granted an extension “to and including March 9, 1

2006...” (Doc. 60) 

2

copy any designated documents . . . which are in the possession, custody or control of the party

upon whom the request is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Where a party fails to make the

required disclosures, a party may move to compel the production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a). “It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required

constitutes a waiver of any objections.” Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d

1468, 1473 (9 Cir. 1992)(citing Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9 Cir. 1981). th th

Here, Plaintiff feels that he is entitled to documents Defendants declined to produce on

the basis that he believes that the responses submitted were untimely. In opposition, Defendants

argue that the responses to the request were not untimely as the Court granted Defendant’s

request to respond nunc pro tunc. 

The Court has examined the Court record and concludes that Defendants are correct. In a

Motion for an Extension of time filed on January 13, 2006, Defendants indicated that the

responses to the Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Requests for Admissions

were due to be served on January 17, 2006. Defendants thus, requested an extension of thirty

days in which to respond. On January 19, 2006, the Court granted that request giving Defendants

to and including February 16, 2006, in which to respond.

On March 9, 2006, Defendants made a second request for an extension of time in which

to serve the responses. Counsel for Defendant indicated that she was notified by Plaintiff that he

had not received the responses and she immediately completed them and served them on March

9, 2006. The Court granted this request nunc pro tunc on March 27, 2006. This meant that the

responses were deemed timely. Plaintiff’s contention that the responses were untimely is 1

incorrect and Defendant’s have not waived their objections to Plaintiff’s requests. Accordingly,

the Motion to Compel production of Documents is DENIED.

B. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 

Plaintiff has also moved to compel responses to his First Set of Requests of Admissions. 

Plaintiff alleges that the responses to the Requests for Admissions are “evasive, incomplete, and

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 78 Filed 10/24/06 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

27

28

3

otherwise, nonresponsive.” 

A Request for Admission (“RFA”) is a discovery procedure whereby one party can force

another party to admit the truth of any relevant fact or the genuineness of any relevant document. 

Unless excused by a protective order, the party to whom RFAs are directed is under a duty to

respond within thirty (30) days after the RFAs are served. Fed.R.Civ.P.36(a). Instead of

admitting or denying an RFA, the responding party may make an objection thereto. Id. 

1. Responses to Admissions 14 and 15.

Defendants objected to Request No. 14 on the ground that it was duplicative of Request

No. 8 and was not a request to admit or deny a material fact. The Court has examined the

question posed in Nos. 8 and 14 and although they are not identical, they do request the same

information. In addition, Defendants are correct in that the request does not seek an admission of

a material fact. Accordingly, the objection to Request No. 14 is proper. 

Defendants objected to Request No. 15 on the ground that it was burdensome and again

did not request Defendant to admit or deny a material fact. Without waiving the objection,

Defendants denied the request on the grounds of lack of information. 

Plaintiff argues that the request is not burdensome and that it is a request to admit or deny

a material fact. However, that Plaintiff believes it is not burdensome is not grounds to compel a

different response. Counsel for Defendant stated that she made a reasonable inquiry and received

insufficient information upon which Defendants could admit or deny the request. Thus, the

request was denied. Defendants also objected on the grounds that it was not a request to admit or

deny a material fact. The Request posed by Plaintiff concerns whether inmates in administrative

segregation on a particular day were permitted to exercise outside of their cells. The claim at

issue in this case is whether Plaintiff was denied the right to outdoor recreation. (Amended

Compl. at 5.) The Court is inclined to agree that the question posed does not request an

admission of a material fact. 

2. Request for Admission Nos. 20, 21.

Defendants denied Request No. 20 which asked “At SATF on Fac. IV-C the housing

units are equipped with their own auxiliary recreational yards.” Defendants also denied Request

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 78 Filed 10/24/06 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

27

28

4

No. 21 which stated that the auxiliary recreational yards are “outfitted with security surveillance

cameras.” Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s responses are false and that Defendant should have

“admitted” them. Plaintiff may not compel a different response simply because he believes the

opposite to be true. Defendants inform Plaintiff that if he can demonstrate the contrary and that

the existence of these is a material fact, his remedy is to apply for an award of costs at the

appropriate time under Rule 37(c). 

Defendants are correct. A proper response to a Request for Admission can be an

admission or denial. When a matter is completely denied, the truth of the matter must be proved

at trial. That Plaintiff disagrees with the response is not grounds to compel a different response. 

Further, whether there are auxiliary recreational yards at Facility IV-C or surveillance cameras on

the yards is not a material fact. In other words, it does not tend to prove or disprove that Plaintiff

was denied outdoor recreation in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the Motion

to Compel responses to Request for Admission Nos. 20 and 21 is DENIED. 

3. Request for Admission Nos. 22, 23 and 24. 

Defendants object to Request Nos. 22, 23 and 24 on the grounds that they presume as true

things which are not true. Not waiving objections, Defendants denied the Request. Defendants

also object to Request No 23 and 24 on the ground that they do not request to admit or deny a

material fact. 

Request No. 22 provides “[a]t SATF on Fac. IV-C employees in regularly armed post are

capable of providing gun tower coverage to each housing unit’s own auxiliary recreational yard.”

Request Nos. 23 and 24 also concern characteristics of what Plaintiff calls an “auxiliary

recreational yard.” 

The Court finds Defendant’s objection proper. The questions posed assume that there

exists an auxiliary recreational yard which Defendants have denied in Request No. 20. As in the

case above, simply because Plaintiff believes the opposite to be true is not sufficient grounds to

compel Defendants to change their answer. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel a different

response to Request Nos. 22, 23 and 24 are DENIED. 

D. REQUESTS FOR INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 78 Filed 10/24/06 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

27

28

5

An interrogatory is a written question propounded by one party to another who must

answer under oath and in writing. These questions are limited to anything within the permissible

scope of discovery, namely, any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of

any party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33, 26(b)(1). 

Plaintiff has moved to compel responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories

propounded on Defendant Adams. Plaintiff contends the responses are “evasive, incomplete and

otherwise nonresponsive.” 

1. Interrogatory Nos. 1-3

Defendants have objected to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, and 3 on the grounds that they are

vague questions and are not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff

states that questions regarding the facility design and the design differences of the facilities are

material to prove that the lockdown of the facility was an exaggerated response. The Court finds

it difficult to see how the design of a facility aids Plaintiff in establishing that his Eighth

Amendment right was violated by the deprivation of outdoor exercise. Further, Defendants are

correct that it appears that Plaintiff already has sufficient information regarding the design and

design differences of the facility as he details these differences in his Motion at page 18. 

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel different responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1-3 is DENIED. 

2. Interrogatory Nos. 4-6 and 15-16.

All of these interrogatories concern the existence of auxiliary exercise yards at the Cfacility. Defendants object again on the grounds that the interrogatories presume facts as true

which Defendants have denied as being true. Again, Plaintiff cannot compel Defendants to

respond to questions which imply the existence of things that Defendants have denied exist. For

the same reasons as stated above, the Motion to Compel responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4-6 and

15-16 is DENIED.

3. Interrogatory No. 7.

This interrogatory asks “State the date, place, and time that each inmate directly involved

in the January 9, 2002, staff assault which occurred at S.A.T.F. Fac. IV-C, and resulted in the

state of emergency lockdown, was first permitted out of cell exercise ‘after’ the January 9, 2002,

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 78 Filed 10/24/06 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

27

28

6

incident.” 

Defendants objected to this on the grounds that it is “over broad, burdensome and not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Motion to Compel a

different response to this interrogatory is denied. Plaintiff has not indicated how this information

will lead to admissible evidence. Further, it is questionable that the information sought will aid

Plaintiff in establishing a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights for deprivation of exercise. 

4. Interrogatory No. 8

Plaintiff asks the Defendant to state what the minimum amount of exercise time is

required by state and federal law for inmates of the general population during a lockdown

exceeding thirty days. Defendants respond that “[t]here is no minimum amount of out of cell

exercise that must be provided to inmates during a state of emergency.” 

Again, this is an instance where Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the response. Plaintiff insists

that this information exists and is available to the Defendant. Defendants state in their

opposition, however, that the minimum exercise time established is for normal operations and

not during lockdowns. The Court finds no impropriety in Defendants response. Accordingly, the

Motion to Compel a response to interrogatory No. 8 is DENIED. 

5. Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12.

These questions involve specific dates on which housing unit searches began and were

completed after the January 9, 2002 staff assault that occurred on Facility IV-C. Defendants

responded that the searches would have begun within a day or two of January 9, 2002 and were

continuous thereafter. 

Again, Plaintiff disagrees with this response and seeks to compel the response he believes

to be correct. Such a response, however, is not evasive or vague as Plaintiff contends. Plaintiff’s

mere disagreement with the response is insufficient to warrant the granting of a Motion to

Compel. 

6. Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 18.

These interrogatories concern the number of complaints/grievances filed relating to the

denial of law library supplies, books, photocopy services and mail related issues from January 9,

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 78 Filed 10/24/06 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

27

28

7

2002, to November 2003. 

Defendants have objected to these requests as over broad, burdensome and will not lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence. Not waiving objections, the Defendants state that there

are no statistical reports containing this information. Plaintiff contends that this response is

untrue because the regulations require inmate appeals to be logged and categorized. 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s basis for challenging Defendants response insufficient to

warrant a Motion to Compel. The fact that inmate appeals are logged and categorized does not

mean that Defendants can press a button and retrieve all of the information that Plaintiff seeks. 

Defendants have stated that there are no statistical reports containing this information. Thus, in

order for Defendants to produce the answer to Plaintiff’s interrogatory, Defendant would have to

manually examine each appeal filed over the course of time specified by Plaintiff. Clearly, this is

over broad and burdensome. 

Moreover, the fact that other inmates have grieved similar issues is not a material fact

going to whether plaintiff was denied access to the court by limited law library access. Finally,

the allegations in the complaint allege that Plaintiff was denied access between June and

December 2000. Because the interrogatory seeks information about allegations made during a

time frame after Plaintiff’s claims arose, Plaintiff’s interrogatory is not likely to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. The Motion to Compel different responses to Interrogatory

Nos. 17 and 18 is DENIED. 

E. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 78 Filed 10/24/06 Page 7 of 7