Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00698/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00698-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

17CV698-CAB(JMA)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN GIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17CV698-CAB(JMA)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

DISCOVERY [DOC. NO. 43]; 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 

DEPOSE DEFENDANTS [DOC. 

NO. 49]; & 

MOTION TO PROCEED THE 

IMPASSE ON ALL DISCOVERY 

ISSUES [DOC. NO. 61]

Currently pending before the Court are three discovery related motions filed 

by Plaintiff Ruben Gil, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court will address 

each in turn.

Introduction

Plaintiff, who was incarcerated and housed at R.J. Donovan Correctional 

Facility (“Donovan”) when he initiated this lawsuit, alleges when he was 

transferred to Donovan he informed Defendant Captain Sanchez and Defendant

Lieutenant Williams that he had experienced assaults by “Security Threat 

Case 3:17-cv-00698-CAB-JMA Document 67 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

17CV698-CAB(JMA)

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

Groups” since 2013, including a recent assault in his cell at the “other 

institution.”1[Doc. No. 1, p. 3 of 8.] He alleges that despite knowing Plaintiff is at 

ongoing risk of harm by members of the “Security Threat Groups,” Defendant 

Sanchez assigned Plaintiff “cellies” that are members of these groups, creating 

serious risk to Plaintiff’s life. [Id.] Defendant Williams is alleged to be aware of,

but indifferent to, Plaintiff’s situation. [Id., p. 2 of 8.] 

Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 43]

A party is entitled to seek discovery of any non-privileged matter that is 

relevant to his claims and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). The discovery may include information that is not admissible. Id. When 

a party objects to a discovery request, it is the burden of the party moving to 

compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. See Lemons v. 

Camarillo, 2017 WL 4700074, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2017; Glass v. Beer, 2007 

WL 913876, at *1 (E.D. Cal Mar. 23, 2007). 

As the moving party, Plaintiff bears the burden of informing the Court which 

discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and, for each disputed 

response, why the information sought is relevant and why Defendants' objections 

are not justified. Id.; see also Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 

2002). Plaintiff contends the responses and documents produced by Defendants 

in response to his first set of interrogatories, requests for admission and 

document requests are insufficient.

2

[Doc. No. 43.] He generally takes issue with

/ /

 

1

 Plaintiff is no longer housed at Donovan, as he was transferred to Corcoran State Prison on 

November 7, 2017. [Doc. No. 39, Notice of Change of Address.] 

2 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion to compel [Doc. No. 43], Defendants’ response to 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel [Doc. No. 47], Plaintiff’s objections to Defendants’ response to 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel [Doc. No. 55], and the Declaration of Lt. D. Williams [Doc. No. 11-

1]. 

Case 3:17-cv-00698-CAB-JMA Document 67 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

17CV698-CAB(JMA)

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

Defendants asserting objections in their discovery responses, without explaining 

why any of Defendants’ objections are without merit.

3

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to produce documents or information 

about his transfers between institutions, including his transfer to a “higher 

institution 180 with violent offenders after Plaintiff was being assaulted 

constantly.” [Doc. No. 43, p. 9 of 45.] Defendants have produced the 

classification chrono and transfer chrono that directed Plaintiff’s transfer to 

Donovan. [Doc. No. 55, p. 40 of 48, Defendant’s Responses to Requests for 

Production of Documents, Request No. 1.] To the extent Plaintiff seeks 

information about his transfers to institutions other than Donovan, this information 

is neither relevant to the claims made in this case, nor proportional to the needs 

of the case. 

 

3 Notwithstanding the objections they asserted, Defendants produced documents and 

substantive discovery responses relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. In response to Plaintiff’s request 

for documents, Defendants produced: 1) the classification chrono and the transfer chrono that 

directed Plaintiff’s transfer to Donovan; 2) documents regarding Plaintiff’s cell moves at

Donovan; 3) Incident Reports relating to assaults against Plaintiff for the past four years; and 

4) Defendants’ duty statements. [Doc. No. 47, pp. 2-3 of 6.] 

In response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, Defendants confirmed Plaintiff was not assaulted at 

Donovan, and that while Plaintiff was housed at Donovan, no inmates documented as 

Plaintiff’s enemies were housed on the same yard as him. Defendants also confirmed the 

names of Plaintiff’s cellmates as he requested, none of whom was on Plaintiff’s enemies list. 

Defendants advised Plaintiff that he was transferred to another institution because when 

Plaintiff’s status changed in the mental health delivery program, Donovan could no longer 

accommodate his housing needs, which necessitated the transfer. Plaintiff was advised that 

Captain Sanchez is able to contact correctional counselors, lieutenants, and sergeants while at 

work, and that she has contact with these persons while at work, including in the program 

office, but not necessarily every day with each official. [Doc. No. 55, pp. 26-34 of 48.] 

Plaintiffs’ requests for admissions are largely compound and difficult to understand, but where 

possible Defendants provided substantive responses. Defendants denied Plaintiff was 

assaulted at Donovan. Defendants admitted the screening procedures used when Plaintiff 

transferred to Donovan. Defendants denied Plaintiff was extorted, assaulted, or victimized at 

Donovan and denied Plaintiff sustained damages. Defendants also denied improper behavior 

by staff at Donovan. [Doc. No. 55, pp. 36-46 of 48.]

Case 3:17-cv-00698-CAB-JMA Document 67 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

17CV698-CAB(JMA)

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

Plaintiff also seeks to compel Defendants to produce photographs of 

tattoos of Plaintiff’s prior cellies Estrada, Monroy, and Reza, as well as their 

general chronos (128G) “so Plaintiff can prove the evil intention in Defendants 

segregating Plaintiff with security threat groups.” [Id. at p. 2 of 45; Doc. No. 55, p. 

42-73 of 48, Request No. 5 & 6.] Production of other inmates’ general chronos 

and personal information implicates these third-parties’ privacy rights, as well as 

safety and security concerns. Furthermore, none of these individuals had 

security-threat status when they were celled with Plaintiff. [Doc. No. 11-1, 

Declaration of Lt. Williams, ¶ 13.] Thus, given the third-party privacy concerns 

and security and safety issues raised by these requests, the importance of the 

issues at stake, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, this 

discovery is not proportional to the needs of the case. 

Lastly, Plaintiff seeks to compel production of the “last names of staff and 

positions in all the institutions Plaintiff got assaulted.” [Id. at p. 5 of 45; Doc. No. 

55, p. 28 of 48, Interrogatory No. 3]. Plaintiff’s claims arise from Defendants 

Sanchez and Williams’ handling of his cell assignments at Donovan. He does not 

allege he was assaulted at Donovan and Defendant has also denied that any 

assaults occurred at Donovan. [Doc. No. 55, p. 19 of 48, Defendants’ Response 

to Request for Admission No. 4.] Furthermore, Defendants have produced 

incident reports for the five physical altercations in which Plaintiff was involved in 

the past four years (none of which was at Donovan). The names and positions of 

every staff member employed at prisons other than Donovan are, thus, not 

relevant to Plaintiff’s claims or any defense, and are not proportional to the needs 

of the case. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED.

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

Case 3:17-cv-00698-CAB-JMA Document 67 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

17CV698-CAB(JMA)

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

Ex Parte Application to Depose Defendants [Doc. No. 49]

In his ex parte application, Plaintiff seeks leave to depose Defendants and 

to take more than ten depositions.4[Doc. No. 49] Plaintiff argues that, in addition 

to Defendants, he needs to depose the wardens and multiple staff members at

each institution where he was assaulted, regarding the treatment he received at 

those other institutions. [Id. at 2-3 of 39.] He also asks the Court to appoint a 

deposition officer for Plaintiff’s depositions, order service of Plaintiff’s deposition 

notices by publication, and order a stenographer to schedule the depositions. [Id. 

at p. 4 of 39.]

Plaintiff has not shown good cause to compel the depositions of 

Defendants or conduct more than ten depositions. Defendants Williams and 

Sanchez have not received notices of deposition, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(b), but represent that if notice is timely served, and if the notices comply with 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they will appear for deposition.

5

[Doc. No. 

58, p. 2 of 3.] Plaintiff has not shown why Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i)’s 

ten deposition limit is inadequate for the needs of his case. Although he says he 

intends to depose wardens and staff members of other prisons regarding his 

treatment at those institutions, it is unclear how any such testimony would help

him prove his case against Defendants Williams and Sanchez.

6

 

4

 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “ex parte application with leave of court to depose 

defendants and adverse defendants [Doc. No. 49]; Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s ex parte 

application [Doc. No. 58]; Plaintiff’s objections to Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s ex parte 

application [Doc. No. 59] and Plaintiff’s “objections to Defendants’ response to subpoena and 

informing the Court that it’s clear that Plaintiff is seeking the Court’s help” [Doc. No. 63]. 

5

 Plaintiff has also not shown a basis for service of deposition notices by publication. As 

discussed above, any deposition of a party or party representative shall be noticed pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b), which is within Plaintiff’s means to accomplish.

6

 As discussed above, in connection with Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Defendants have 

produced incident reports for the assaults at other prisons, and confirmed Plaintiff was neither 

housed with security-threat-group inmates, nor assaulted by anyone while at Donovan.

Case 3:17-cv-00698-CAB-JMA Document 67 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

17CV698-CAB(JMA)

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

Lastly, with respect to Plaintiff’s request the Court appoint others to assist 

with scheduling and taking any depositions, it is not the role of the Court to 

conduct discovery on a party’s behalf. If Plaintiff seeks to conduct a deposition he 

will be responsible for arranging the presence of an officer authorized to 

administer oaths by the laws of the United States, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 

28(a), and a means of recording the testimony either by sound, sound-andvisual, or stenographic means. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3). Plaintiff will also be

responsible for these and any other costs related to any deposition(s) he takes.

See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-212 (9th Cir. 1989). 7 These fees are not 

waived based on Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status. Id Based on the foregoing, 

Plaintiff’s ex parte application is DENIED.

Motion to Proceed the Impasse on all Discovery Issues [Doc. No. 61]

In his “motion to proceed the impasse on all discovery issues,” Plaintiff 

reports he has reached an impasse on his efforts to meet and confer with 

counsel for Defendants regarding discovery issues, including the discovery 

requests that are the subject of the motion to compel discussed above. [Doc. No. 

61.] He requests the Court order defense counsel meet and confer with him in 

person, at Corcoran State Prison, because he is currently limited to written 

correspondence and phone calls lasting not more than 15 minutes, which he 

says is not an adequate amount of time to sufficiently meet and confer. [Id.] The

Court appreciates the challenges an incarcerated individual faces in litigating a 

case and understands meeting and conferring in-person can be more efficient 

and effective than doing so by telephone; however, the Court is not convinced 

 

7 Another example of a deposition-related expense Plaintiff would be required to bear is travel 

and attendance fees for any witness whose attendance at deposition is sought pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. When a party serves a subpoena that requires a person’s attendance for 

deposition, he must pay the witness fees for one day’s attendance and mileage at the time the 

subpoena is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1).

Case 3:17-cv-00698-CAB-JMA Document 67 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

17CV698-CAB(JMA)

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

requiring defense counsel to travel to Corcoran will help effectuate a resolution of

the parties’ discovery disputes. Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff wishes to 

meet and confer regarding responses to the interrogatories, requests for 

admission, and document requests that are the subject of the previously 

discussed motion to compel, these issues are now moot, as the Court has ruled 

on all issues presented by Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Plaintiff’s motion to 

proceed the impasse on all discovery issues is, therefore, DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 4, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00698-CAB-JMA Document 67 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7