Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02750/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02750-22/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEON OWENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH DEGAZIO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 16-cv-2750 JAM KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 7, 2019, the undersigned granted plaintiff thirty days to file an 

amended motion to compel regarding his request for inspection of things and request for 

production of documents addressed in his July 16, 2018 motion to compel. (ECF No. 134.) 

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended motion to compel regarding his request for 

inspection of things and request for production of documents. (ECF No. 137.) 

Background

This action proceeds on the original complaint against defendants Bettencourt, Blessing, 

Brady, Burke, Defazio, Drake, Eldridge, Guffee, Lebeck, Martnicek, Martinez, Matthews, 

Mercado, Murillo, Okoroike, Rashev and Schultz.1 

 

1

 Defendants’ opposition to the motion to compel does not list defendant Drake as a defendant.

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 151 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 10
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

The gravamen of this action is plaintiff’s claim that on February 18, 2015, several 

defendants used excessive force against him. The pending motion to compel seeks documents 

and evidence related to those alleged incidents of excessive force. 

Request for Production of Things

Request No. 1

In request no. 1, plaintiff asks defendants to produce photographs of the “personal bike 

glove” worn by defendants DeFazio, Blessing, Brady, Lebeck, Burk, Bettencourt and Rashev. 

(ECF No. 137 at 10.) 

Defendants opposed request no. 1 on the grounds that it was unintelligible and vague as to 

the term “personal bike glove.” (ECF No. 143 at 3.) In the opposition to the motion to compel, 

defendants state that they do not wear “bike gloves” as part of their required uniforms. (Id. at 4.) 

Defendants also argue that plaintiff is requesting that defendants create a document that does not 

exist, in this case a photograph, in response to his request. (Id.) Defendants argue that they are 

not required to create documents or photographs in response to discovery requests. (Id.)

Parties have an “obligation to construe ... discovery requests in a reasonable manner.” 

Cache LaPoudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614, 618 (D. Colo. 2007); see

also King-Hardy v. Bloomfield Board of Education, 2002 WL 32506294 at *5 (D. Conn. 2002) 

(responding party must give discovery requests a reasonable construction, rather than strain to 

find ambiguity); McCoo v. Denny’s Inc., 192 F.R.D. 675, 694 (D. Kan. 2000) (“A party 

responding to discovery requests should exercise reason and common sense to attribute ordinary 

definitions to terms and phrases utilized ...”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

A party is not obligated to create documents that do not exist in response to a discovery 

request. See Goolsby v. Carrasco, 2011 WL 2636099 at *8-9 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2011) (denying 

plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents where plaintiff’s request required defendant 

to “create documents, as opposed to produce already existing document.”) 

In request no. 1, while plaintiff describes the gloves allegedly worn by defendants as “bike 

gloves,” plaintiff clearly seeks photographs of the gloves allegedly worn by defendants on 

February 18, 2015 when they allegedly used excessive force against plaintiff. It is not clear 

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 151 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 10
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

whether defendants are claiming no photographs of “bike gloves” exist or whether defendants are 

claiming that no photographs of any gloves worn by defendants on February 18, 2015 exist. 

Accordingly, within fourteen days of the date of this order, defendants shall file an amended 

response to request no. 1. If no photographs of the gloves allegedly worn by defendants on 

February 18, 2015 exist, then the undersigned will not order a further response to request no. 1. 

Request No. 2

In request no. 2, plaintiff asks defendants for photographs of the work boots worn by 

defendants DeFazio and Blessing. (ECF No. 137 at 10.)

Without waiving objection, defendants responded that no photographs exist of defendants 

DeFazio and Blessing’s work boots worn at the time of the February 18, 2015 incident. (ECF No. 

143 at 4.) 

The photographs plaintiff seeks in request no. 2 do not exist. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 

motion to compel as to request no. 2 is denied. See Goolsby v. Carrasco, 2011 WL 2636099 at 

*8-9 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2011).

Request No. 5

In request no. 5, plaintiff asks defendants for photographs of the tower booth taken in 

front of cell 232 facing the tower booth. (ECF No. 137 at 11.)

Defendants responded that no photographs exist of the tower booth taken in front of cell 

232 facing the tower booth. (ECF No. 143 at 5.)

The photograph plaintiff seeks in request no. 5 does not exist. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 

motion to compel as to request no. 5 is denied. See Goolsby v. Carrasco, 2011 WL 2636099 at 

*8-9 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2011).

Request no. 7

In request no. 7, plaintiff asks defendants for photographs of each correctional officer 

defendant who was named as a participant in the February 18, 2015 beating. (ECF No. 137 at 

11.) Plaintiff requests a “close up” photograph, showing just the defendant’s face. (Id.) Plaintiff 

requests another photograph from about six feet away showing the complete body structure, from 

the face to the feet. (Id.)

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 151 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 10
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

Without waiving objection, defendants responded that the photographs sought in request 

no. 7 do no exist. (ECF No. 143 at 5.) 

The photographs plaintiff seeks in request no. 7 do not exist. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 

motion to compel as to request no. 7 is denied. See Goolsby v. Carrasco, 2011 WL 2636099 at 

*8-9 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2011).

Request no. 10

In request no. 10, plaintiff requests inspection of the DVD videotape interview conducted 

by Lieutenant Rodriguez and Sergeant Olivas on February 18, 2015. (ECF No. 137 at 11.)

In response to request no. 10, defendants stated that accommodations were made with 

plaintiff’s institution for plaintiff to view the video and take notes. (ECF No. 143 at 6.) In the 

motion to compel, plaintiff requests that his sister be allowed to purchase a copy of the videotape. 

(ECF No. 137 at 12.)

In the opposition to the motion to compel, defendants state that Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 34(a)(1) provides that a party may serve on any other party a request within the scope 

of Rule 26(b) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, 

test, or sample...” items in the responding party’s possession, custody or control. (Emphasis 

added.) Defendants argue that plaintiff’s sister is not plaintiff’s representative within the meaning 

of Rule 34(a)(1). Defendants argue that they properly responded to this request by allowing 

plaintiff to inspect the DVD.

The undersigned agrees that plaintiff’s sister is not his representative within the meaning 

of Rule 34(a)(1). Because plaintiff has been allowed to view the DVD, the motion to compel as 

to request no. 10 is denied.

Request No. 11

In request no. 11, plaintiff requests inspection of the DVD videotape of the interview 

conducted at CMF-Vac on February 21, 2015. (ECF No. 137 at 11.) 

In response to request no. 11, defendants stated that plaintiff had been provided an 

opportunity to view the videotape, as requested. (ECF No. 143 at 6.) In the motion to compel, 

plaintiff requests that his sister be allowed to purchase a copy of the videotape. (ECF No. 137 at 

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 151 Filed 01/10/20 Page 4 of 10
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

12.)

As discussed above, plaintiff’s sister is not plaintiff’s representative within the meaning of 

Rule 34(a)(1). Because plaintiff has been allowed to view the DVD, the motion to compel as to 

request no. 11 is denied.

Request no. 12

The motion to compel regarding request no. 12 is based on defendants’ response to 

request no. 9. Request no. 9 sought a copy of all photographs taken of plaintiff following the 

February 18, 2015 incident. (ECF No. 137 at 43.) Defendants responded to request no. 9 by 

providing plaintiff with a copy of all photographs taken of plaintiff following the February 28, 

2015 incident. (Id.)

In at-issue request no. 12, plaintiff requests that all photographs provided by defendants 

be in color for clear details. (ECF No. 137 at 12.) Defendants responded that, subject to the 

above objections, and safety and security of the institution, all color photographs in defendants’ 

possession, custody and control were provided to plaintiff. (ECF No. 143 at 7.) Defendants

responded that after a reasonable and diligent search, defendants were unable to find color 

photographs referenced in request no. 9. (Id.) Therefore, only black and white photographs were 

available for request no. 9. (Id.)

In the opposition to the motion to compel, defendants argue that plaintiff is asking 

defendants to create items that do not exist, i.e., photographs in color. The undersigned agrees. 

Because plaintiff seeks photographs that do not exist, the motion to compel as to request no. 12 is

denied. See Goolsby v. Carrasco, 2011 WL 2636099 at *8-9 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2011).

Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiff’s motion to compel addresses defendants’ responses to request for production of 

documents nos. 1-12, 19 and 21.

Request no. 1 sought the CDCR Form 3013 (rev. 02/10), inmate interview guidelines. 

(ECF No. 137 at 13; ECF No. 143 at 33.) 

Request no. 2 sought the CDCR Form 3014 rev. 6/09, report of findings, inmate 

interview. (ECF No. 137 at 14; ECF No. 143 at 33.) 

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 151 Filed 01/10/20 Page 5 of 10
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

Request no. 3 sought the CDCR Form 3010 (rev. 6/09), incident commander 

review/critique use of force incident. (ECF No. 137 at 14; ECF No. 143 at 34.) 

Request no. 4 sought the CDCR Form 3011 (rev. 6/09), manager’s review - first level use 

of force incidents. (ECF No. 137 at 14; ECF No. 143 at 34.) 

Request no. 5 sought the CDCR Form 3012 (rev. 6/09), manager’s review - second level 

use of force incidents. (ECF No. 137 at 15; ECF No. 143 at 35.) 

Request no. 6 sought the CDCR Form 3034 (rev. 6/09), IERC allegation review. (ECF 

No. 137 at 15; ECF No. 143 at 35.) 

Request no. 7 sought CDCR Form 3036 (rev. 6/09), IERC critique and qualitative 

evaluation. (ECF No. 137 at 15; ECF No. 143 at 36.) 

Request no. 8 sought the CDCR Form 3035 (rev. 6/09) IERC use of force review and 

further action recommendation. (ECF No. 137 at 16; ECF No. 143 at 36).

Request no. 9 sought the CDCR Form 1123 Records of Counseling. (ECF No. 137 at 16; 

ECF No. 143 at 37.) 

Request no. 10 sought the CDCR Form 402 hiring authority review of investigation. 

(ECF No. 137 at 16; ECF No. 143 at 38.) 

Request no. 11 sought the CDCR Form 402 justification of penalty. (ECF No. 137 at 16-

17; ECF No. 143 at 38.)

Request no. 12 sought a copy of defendants’ initial disclosure. (ECF No. 137 at 17; ECF 

No. 143 at 38.) 

Request no. 19 sought the CSP-Suicide Observation Record dated 2/18/2015 at 0600-1145 

hours. (ECF No. 137 at 18; ECF No. 143 at 41.).

Request no. 21 sought a copy of the decision letter prepared by OIA that was mentioned in 

the Third Level Response to the plaintiff’s appeal log no. SAC 15-0582 and TLR Case no. 

1414306. (ECF No. 137 at 18; ECF No. 143 at 42.)

Request nos. 1-11, 21

In the opposition to the motion to compel, defendants argue that the documents sought are 

protected by the official information privilege. (ECF No. 143 at 8-9.) In support of this claim, 

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 151 Filed 01/10/20 Page 6 of 10
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

defendants cite the privilege log and declaration of Lieutenant M. Lujan, attached to the 

opposition. (Id.) 

With respect to the claim of privilege, “[f]ederal common law recognizes a qualified 

privilege for official information... To determine whether the information sought is privileged, 

courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the 

latter is greater, the privilege bars discovery.” Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 

1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). 

A party claiming that information is privileged must “describe the nature of the 

documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner 

that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to 

assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). In addition to a privilege log, a party seeking 

to invoke the official information privilege and prevent disclosure must submit an affidavit from 

an official of the agency in control of the materials sought addressing the following concerns:

“(1) an affirmation that the agency generated or collected the 

material in issue and has maintained its confidentiality; (2) a 

statement that the official has personally reviewed the material in 

question; (3) a specific identification of the governmental or privacy 

interests that would be threatened by disclosure of the material to 

plaintiff and/or his lawyer; (4) a description of how disclosure 

subject to a carefully crafted protective order would create a 

substantial risk of harm to significant governmental or privacy 

interests, and (5) a projection of how much harm would be done to 

the threatened interests if disclosure were made.”

Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Kelly v. City of San 

Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 670 (N.D. Cal. 1987)).

In his declaration, M. Lujan states that he reviewed the documents set forth in the 

privilege log, i.e., request nos. 1-11 and 21. (ECF No. 143 at 25.) M. Lujan states that disclosing 

documents related to the investigation of use of force incidents would endanger individuals and 

threaten the security of the institution if released. (Id. at 26.) M. Lujan states that these 

documents contain information that would reveal techniques used to investigate inmate and 

parolee complaints against staff, and the type of corrective measures taken as a result of such an 

investigation. (Id.) M. Lujan states that disclosure of this information would give inmates the 

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 151 Filed 01/10/20 Page 7 of 10
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

tools to sabotage staff attempts to deal with disruptive conduct and undermine investigations. 

(Id.) M. Lujan states that disclosure of this information would also hurt staff morale, make it 

difficult to recruit staff and make staff and witnesses unwilling to provide information if they 

knew that the information would be disclosed. (Id.)

M. Lujan states that disclosure of the information in these documents would create danger 

that the information in the documents could be circulated to the prison population. (Id.) Such 

information would create a danger that the prison population would exploit the information in 

order to circumvent and prevent procedures designed to protect inmates and staff from inmate 

attacks. (Id. at 27-28.)

M. Lujan states that by maintaining confidentiality in the internal affairs investigative 

process, inmates and staff are encouraged to make truthful statements. (Id. at 27.) M. Lujan 

states that confidential investigate files must remain confidential to protect the privacy interests of 

the complaining inmates and inmate-witnesses. (Id.) M. Lujan states that disclosure of these 

documents may also disclose confidential and private information, including inmates’ 

classification scores, sexual orientation, etc. Although plaintiff does not appear to seek 

grievances regarding other inmates, M. Lujan states that inmate appeals can also include an 

inmate’s trust account balance or confidential attachments. (Id.) M. Lujan states that it is 

essential that private information about correctional officers contained in confidential 

investigative files, including their full names, addresses, etc., be kept confidential to protect the 

safety and security of these officer and their families. (Id.)

Finally, M. Lujan states that disclosure of the documents sought, even subject to a 

protective order, is inadequate to ensure the safety and security of CDCR’s institutions. (Id. at 

29.) 

As indicated above, defendants withheld every document without regard to its content or 

importance to this case. Defendants did not address the importance of the documents to plaintiff, 

notwithstanding the case law which requires a balancing of the benefits against the harm of 

disclosure. See Wells v. Gonzales, 2019 WL 4054022 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2019), citing 

Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1017 at 1033-34. 

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 151 Filed 01/10/20 Page 8 of 10
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

Defendants have also failed to address any specific harm posed by the production of the 

withheld documents. Defendants do not contend that any specific document threatens the safety 

and security of the institution, staff or inmates based on its content. Instead, defendants rely on 

the declaration of M. Lujan for the proposition that disclosure of any and all withheld documents 

would endanger the safety of staff and inmates. However, the Lujan declaration does not 

specifically address any of the documents actually withheld. 

Defendants’ claim that they may withhold every document related to the investigation of 

the allegations of excessive force from discovery is not legally supported. See Wells v. Gonzales, 

2019 WL 4054022 at *6 (“In conclusion, Defendant’s claim that she may withheld every 

document regarding any grievance, confiscation slip, incident report, or investigation at the prison 

from discovery is not legally well supported.”); Harris v. German, 2019 WL 4640503 at *8-9 

(E.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2019) (in case where prisoner alleged excessive force, court ordered 

defendants to produce redacted investigation report after balancing benefits against harm of 

disclosure); Caruso v. Solorio, 2018 WL 2021019 at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. May 1, 2018) (court 

overrules official information privilege as to witness statements and evidence as described in 

order); Watkins v. Murphy, 2018 WL 5278819 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (in case where prisoner alleged 

excessive force, following in camera review, court allowed prisoner to review documents sought 

in discovery and to take notes). 

Accordingly, defendants are ordered to submit the documents sought in request nos. 1-11 

and 21 for in camera review. Defendants shall submit a clean copy of these documents and a 

copy containing proposed redactions.2 The undersigned will then determine whether limited 

and/or redacted disclosure of these documents to plaintiff is appropriate, subject to a protective 

order. 

////

////

 

2

 The undersigned cannot determine the nature of all the documents plaintiff seeks based on their 

description in the pleadings. In camera review will clarify, for the undersigned, the nature of 

plaintiff’s requests. 

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 151 Filed 01/10/20 Page 9 of 10
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

Request Nos. 12, 19

As discussed above, request no. 12 sought a copy of the defendants’ initial disclosure. 

Defendants objected to this request on the grounds that the parties did not exchange initial 

disclosures in this matter. (ECF No. 143 at 38.) Therefore, defendants did not prepare initial 

disclosures and they are therefore unavailable. (Id.)

Defendants’ objections to request no. 12 are well taken. Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to 

request no. 12 is denied.

As discussed above, request no. 19 sought the CSP-suicide observation record, dated 

2/18/15, at 0600-1145 hours. Defendants provided plaintiff with all responsive documents in 

their custody and control. (ECF No. 143 at 41.) In the motion to compel, plaintiff does not 

address how the documents provided by defendants in response to request no. 19 were 

inadequate. For this reason, the motion to compel as to request no. 19 is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 137) is denied as to request for production of 

things nos. 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12; within fourteen days of the date of this order, defendants 

shall file a further response to request for production of things no. 1, as discussed 

above;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 137) is denied as to request for production of 

documents nos. 12 and 19;

3. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, defendants shall submit, for in camera 

review, two copies of the documents sought in request for production of documents 

nos. 1-11 and 21; one copy shall be clean, and one copy shall contain proposed 

redactions.

Dated: January 10, 2020

Ow2750.com(3)

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 151 Filed 01/10/20 Page 10 of 10