Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00845/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00845-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Willie D. Randle, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

L. V. Franklin, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 1-08-00845-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Willie D. Randle’s Motion for an Order

Compelling Discovery. (Doc. 53). For the following reasons, the Court grants the Motion.

I. Factual Background

This case was reassigned to the undersigned judge on November 25, 2008. (Doc. 8

at 1). Plaintiff Willie D. Randle, who is confined in the Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”),

in Delano, California, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(Id.). After screening Plaintiff’s Complaint, this Court ordered four Defendants, Franklin,

Nicholas, Philips and Sather, to answer Plaintiff’s constitutional claims of excessive force

and failure to protect and his state law claims of assault and battery stemming from an

incident that occurred on October 29, 2007. (Id.).

Plaintiff initially requested discovery of “[a]ny and all memoranda, polic[i]es,

procedures, regulations, instru[c]tions, notes, internal communication, Kern Valley State

Prison “B” facility 4 building log book (control and floor) concerning October 29, 2007. . .

Case 1:08-cv-00845-JAT Document 59 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 8
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 -

that establishes all duties and responsibilities, and all daily activity.” (Doc. 53 at Exhibit C,

p. 4). Defendant denied this discovery request on the grounds that it was overbroad, vague,

compound, assumed facts not in evidence or not yet established, not relevant to a stated

claim, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Id.).

Defendant also denied the discovery request because “it seeks confidential information and

documents that cannot be disclosed to inmates due to safety and security concerns.” (Id. at

Exhibit C, p. 5).

Plaintiff next requested to view “a copy of “B” facility 4 building control and floor

log book pages ‘Only’ regarding the activities of 10-29-07 third watch” on May 7, 2010

through an Inmate Request for Interview form. (Id. at Exhibit A) (emphasis in original).

Litigation Coordinator W. R. Adams denied this request because the requested document

“contain[ed] information regarding staff and other inmates that is otherwise confidential to

you.” (Id.). On May 19, 2010, Plaintiff wrote Defendants’ counsel with a similar request,

saying, “I only want the log book pages of 10-29-07 from Kern Valley State Prison “B”

facility 4 building, both floor and control log book, [a]nd factual statements in prison records

relating to the investigation of my claim of the staff complaint against the Defendants, on 10-

29-07 . . . [a]s these pertain to [illegible] my claim of proof.” (Id. at Exhibit B) (ellipses in

original).

On July 7, 2010, Plaintiff moved the Court to compel discovery of the following

information: “Kern Valley State Prison Facility “B” building 4 floor control log book pages

of 10-29-07, as pertain[s] to the essential[s] of this case.” (Id. at 1). Defendants filed a

response on July 19. (Doc. 54)

II. Legal Standard

Upon a showing of good cause, parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter that

is not privileged and is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Information is relevant for purposes of discovery if “it is reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence,” even if the information is not admissible at trial. Id.

“The question of relevancy should be construed liberally and with common sense and

Case 1:08-cv-00845-JAT Document 59 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 8
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 -

discovery should be allowed unless the information sought has no conceivable bearing on

the case.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F. R. D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995). The party upon

whom the request is made must make a written response stating that inspection will be

permitted as requested, unless the party objects and states the basis therefor. Fed. R. Civ. P.

34(b). A party may move for an order compelling discovery with respect to objections or

other failure to respond to requests to produce documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B), 34(b).

A court may compel discovery upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

III. Burden of Proof

“Under the liberal discovery principles of the Federal Rules defendants [are] required

to carry a heavy burden of showing why discovery was denied.” Blankenship v. Hearst

Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); see also Ibanez v. Miller, 2009 WL 3481679 (E.D.

Cal. 2009) (“defendants failed to satisfy their burden of showing why [their objections to

discovery] should be sustained”) (emphasis original). The defendant must “clarify[],

explain[], and support[] its objections.” El-Shaddai v. Wheeler, 2009 WL 301824 (E.D. Cal.

2009) (unreported) (citing Blankenship, 519 F.2d at 429). Additionally, courts do not hold

pro se litigants to the same standards as attorneys. Walker v. Karela, 2009 WL 3075575, *1

(E.D. Cal. 2009). 

Courts in the Eastern District of California have required, “at a minimum, as the

moving party plaintiff has the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery requests are

the subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of the defendant’s responses are disputed, (3)

why he believes the defendant’s responses are deficient, (4) why the defendant’s objections

are not justified, and (5) why the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the

prosecution of this action.” Walker, 2009 WL 3075575, *1 (numbering of requirements

added); Brooks v. Alameida, 2009 WL 331358, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2009).

These requirements, however, cannot be read as shifting the burden to the plaintiff to

prove his motion to compel discovery because this would contravene Rule 26(b)(1) and

Ninth Circuit precedent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“For good cause, the court may order

discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter [even if the discovery is not]

Case 1:08-cv-00845-JAT Document 59 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 8
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

Although Plaintiff originally requested the whole log book, (Doc. 53 at Exhibit C,

p. 4), Plaintiff later requested only the pages from October 29, 2007 as they pertained to him.

- 4 -

admissible at trial”); Blankenship, 519 F.2d at 429 (“defendants [are] required to carry a

heavy burden of showing why discovery was denied”). Rather, these requirements simply

reiterate the “good cause” standard found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In other words, these

requirements ensure that the discovery sought is not totally irrelevant and that each party

knows which pieces of discovery are disputed and why. Indeed, the Eastern District often

applies these requirements in cases where a plaintiff makes a blanket motion to compel

without specifying which documents he seeks, which of defendants’ objections he disagrees

with, and without any regard to whether the requested documents even exist, much less if

they are relevant. See, e.g., Williams v. Flint, 2007 WL 2274520, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2007).

Williams is an indicative example of how the Eastern District applies its minimum

requirements for a motion to compel discovery. 2007 WL 2274520. In that case, the

plaintiff argued that defendant “responded [to his discovery requests] with defective replies

which are evasive and/or incomplete disclosures, answers, or responses . . . .” Id. at *1.

However, the court noted that the plaintiff made no specific responses to any of defendant’s

objections to discovery; instead the plaintiff only “generally argue[d] that the responses

[were] vague and inadequate.” Id. at *2. Therefore, the court denied the motion to compel

discovery. Id. at *3; see also Walker, 2009 WL 3075575 at *1 (motion to compel denied

because plaintiff made no specific arguments as to why defendant’s response was inadequate

and because plaintiff moved to compel discovery of documents that plaintiff had not yet

requested from defendant).

III. Analysis

In this case, Plaintiff has requested pages from the KVSP Facility, Building B, 4th

floor control log book. (Doc. 53 at 1). Plaintiff has limited this request to the date of

October 29, 2007 and to “just factual documentation of statement[s] that pertain to this case

only. (Id. at 2).1

 This is sufficient to establish good cause. Defendants objected, and

Case 1:08-cv-00845-JAT Document 59 Filed 08/03/10 Page 4 of 8
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 (Id. at Exhibit A, Exhibit B). Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel concerns only these pages. Id.

- 5 -

continue to object, on the basis that this document is confidential to inmates in part because

inmate access to this document would represent a security threat. (Doc. 54 at 4). The Court

finds that, although Defendants may need to redact portions of the document, Defendants

have not met their burden of proving that discovery of this document is inappropriate.

Maintaining confidentiality of prison employees and ensuring prison safety are both

sufficient reasons for refusing a discovery request. See Ibanez, 2009 WL 3481679, *3 (E.D.

Cal. 2009) (“it appears probable that release of the information would [] compromise tactical

responses to disturbances”); Adams v. Epps, 2008 WL 5272062, *1 (S.D. Miss. 2008)

(unreported) (noting potential security concerns associated with allowing an inmate access

to a prison security videotape); Norman v. Wrolstad, 2007 WL 2729073, *2 (D. N.D. 2007)

(unreported) (refusing to disclose a prisoner’s identity for safety concerns). However, the

Defendant has the burden of showing that confidentiality and safety concerns override the

liberal discovery procedures outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. See Blankenship, 519 F.2d at

429; Soto, 162 F. R. D. at 610.

Ibanez is instructive on the issue of compelling discovery of prison records. 2009 WL

3481679. In Ibanez, an inmate suing under § 1983 sought discovery of “any and all policies,

directives, or instructions to staff on how to respond to an alarm on the yard in a general

population setting.” Id. at *1. Defendant objected to the discovery of this information

because it was vague, overbroad and irrelevant. Id. Instead, defendant disclosed a privilege

log, but never asserted the reasons for the privilege. Id. The trial court found that defendant

had not met his burden of showing that this discovery was privileged and ordered the

discovery. Id. Defendant then moved the court to reconsider, arguing that disclosing these

policies to a prisoner would jeopardize institutional security. Id. Defendant submitted the

affidavit of an Associate Warden to substantiate this argument. Id. at *3. Additionally, the

trial court reviewed the discovery in camera. Id. Based on the Warden’s affidavit and the

court’s in camera review, the court found discovery of these prison policies “could endanger

Case 1:08-cv-00845-JAT Document 59 Filed 08/03/10 Page 5 of 8
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 -

prison staff and compromise tactical responses to prison alarms.” Id.

Here, as an initial matter, Plaintiff has satisfied the Eastern District of California’s

minimum requirements for a motion to compel. See Walker, 2009 WL 3075575 at *1.

Plaintiff has clearly identified which discovery request is subject to his motion to compel,

attaching as Exhibits his multiple requests for the document. (Doc. 53 at Exhibit A-C).

Defendant has only one remaining objection to this request (Doc. 54 at 4), so there can be

no confusion as to which objection Plaintiff is challenging. Plaintiff believes that

Defendant’s response is deficient and unjustified because he seeks information from the day

of the incident between him and two of the named Defendants, and he seeks only information

pertaining to him (Doc. 53 at 2). This is distinguishable from Ibanez where the court denied

a request for “any and all policies . . . on how to respond to an alarm on the yard.” 2009 WL

3481679 at *1. Plaintiff here is also much more specific than the plaintiff in Williams who

merely raised general disagreements with that defendant’s objections to discovery. See

Williams, 2007 WL 2274520 at *1. Finally, the relevance of this document can hardly be

questioned. It would reveal the Defendants’ contemporaneous statements related to the

October 29th incident. Thus, Plaintiff has met his initial burden of showing good cause and

Defendant now has the burden of proving that confidentiality and safety concerns weigh

against granting Plaintiff’s discovery request. See Blankenship, 519 F.2d at 429.

Defendant asserts that the log book cannot be disclosed to Plaintiff because inmate

access to such information would provide inmates the opportunity to devise tactics to harm

staff or circumvent prison policies. (Doc. 54 at 4). However, unlike Ibanez, Defendant has

not supported this assertion with an affidavit or any other evidence. See Ibanez, 2009 WL

3481679 at *3. Nor has Defendant provided the Court with any authority suggesting

discovery requests for prison log books should be per se denied. See contra In re Olson, 37

Cal. App. 3d 783 (1974) (finding inmate’s prison files are not absolutely privileged under

any statute or public policy). Additionally, Plaintiff seeks only one day of a log book, and

only information pertaining to him. (Doc. 53 at 1). This is distinguishable from Ibanez,

where the plaintiff requested “any and all policies . . . on how to respond to an alarm on the

Case 1:08-cv-00845-JAT Document 59 Filed 08/03/10 Page 6 of 8
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 -

yard.” Ibanez, 2009 WL 3481679 at *1. While the information sought in Ibanez could have

easily revealed and “compromise[d] tactical responses to disturbances,” Ibanez, 2009 WL

3481679 at *3, the information sought here concerns only a single response to an incident

involving a single person and is therefore unlikely to reveal broad security operations.

However, Defendant may redact the contents of the document that are so broad and

generalized that revealing such contents would compromise prison security’s tactical

response to disturbances. Defendant may also redact portions of the document referring to

people not parties in this suit.

Defendant also objects to Plaintiff’s failure to include a Memorandum of Points and

Authorities with his Motion to Compel. (Doc. 54 at 2). Plaintiff’s arguments are instead

contained within his Motion to Compel. (Doc. 53). The Court finds no significance in this

fact, especially where Defendant holds the burden of proof. See Blankenship, 519 F.2d at

429. Additionally, Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who is not held to the same standard as an

attorney. See Walker, 2009 WL 3075575 at *1. The Court will not deny Plaintiff’s motion

merely for failing to file a separate Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff impermissibly moved to compel discovery

against some of the Defendants. (Doc. 54 at 4-5). Defendant Nicholas has not yet filed a

responsive pleading and Defendant Sather did not receive the initial discovery request. (Id.).

However, the Motion to Compel is appropriate at least as to Defendants Franklin and Philips.

Thus, the Motion will be granted as to these two Defendants.

IV. Conclusion

The Court therefore grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery of KVSP Facility,

Building B, 4th floor control log book. This discovery is limited to the pages for October 29,

2007. The Defendant is permitted to redact this document to remove references to parties

not involved in this lawsuit and broad, generalized contents that, if revealed, would

compromise prison security’s tactical response to disturbances.

Accordingly

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 53) is granted to the extent

Case 1:08-cv-00845-JAT Document 59 Filed 08/03/10 Page 7 of 8
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 -

that Defendants shall produce Kern Valley State Prison Facility, Building B, 4th floor control

log book entries for October 29, 2007, as redacted in accordance with this Order, to Plaintiff

within 14 days of the date of this Order.

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2010.

Case 1:08-cv-00845-JAT Document 59 Filed 08/03/10 Page 8 of 8