Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00086/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00086-60/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00086-OWW-GSA PC

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

RESPONSES TO ATKINSON POD 6 and

FLORES PODS 1-3, AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

DEFENDANTS GARCIA AND MEDRANO

TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS

(Docs. 140, 157, and 195)

Supplemental Order on Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel

On April 14, 2009, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s

motions to compel, directing the parties to file status report regarding how photocopy costs are

handled for indigent prisoners, directing Defendants’ counsel to clarify in his status report whether

he represents Defendants Garcia and Medrano, and extending the discovery deadline to July 1, 2009.

I. Cost Shifting Relating to Photocopy Costs

With respect to shifting the cost of photocopying to Defendants, the Court reserved its ruling

on Atkinson POD 6 and Flores PODs 1-3 pending receipt of the parties’status reports. Plaintiff did

not file a status report, but Defendants did and contend that inmates are provided with copies of all

documents in the non-confidential portion of their central files and that Plaintiff already has copies

by virtue of the ordinary course of business. Defendants further contend that inmates must bear the

cost of copying documents for their litigation and if they are indigent, the institution determines on

1

Case 1:05-cv-00086-OWW -GSA Document 218 Filed 02/08/10 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

a case-by-case basis whether to provide free copies. Defendants request that if costs are shifted to

them, Plaintiff be required to conduct a review of his central file and tag those documents he seeks

to have copied. 

Plaintiff has a right to relevant, discoverable information and if he does not have equal

access to obtaining copies, the Court will order Defendants to produce the copies. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b). In this instance, Plaintiff does not have equal access to copying the documents, as his ability

to make copies given his indigent status is dependent upon the institution making a case-by-case

determination. The Court declines to presume that Plaintiff will be allowed to make free copies

under such a circumstance. Although Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not have a constitutional

right to a waiver of costs, Plaintiff has a right to obtain discovery in this case, and that is the issue

before the Court. 

The Court reserved its ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Atkinson POD 6

and Flores PODs 1-3 pending receipt of the parties’ status reports. Plaintiff’s motion to compel

responses to Atkinson POD 6 and Flores PODs 1-3 is granted. The Court has reviewed the original

discovery requests and Defendants’ responses, and there is no indication in the responses that the

discovery requests were overly broad or vague, or that Defendants were otherwise uncertain which

documents were sought. However, Defendants are not required to produce responsive documents 1

already within Plaintiff’s possession. Therefore, Plaintiff must review his central file and mark the

documents he does not have copies of which are responsive to Atkinson POD 6 and Flores PODs

1 and 3. For Flores POD 2, which calls for the production of Title 15 and DOM documents, Plaintiff

must notify Defendants’ counsel by letter within thirty days whether he has in his possession any of

the sections or articles referred to by Defendants in their response to POD 2. 

Defendants’ counsel shall contact the Litigation Office at California State Prison-Corcoran

and request that Plaintiff’s review of his central file be facilitated as soon as possible, and preferably

within the next thirty days. Defendants have thirty days from the date of Plaintiff’s letter to produce

Arroyo and Atkinson PODs 4 were overly broad and vague. However, those requests were not subject to

1

a reserved ruling. Plaintiff’s motion was denied, and he was instructed that he would have to review his central file,

redraft narrower and more specific requests, and re-serve those requests.

2

Case 1:05-cv-00086-OWW -GSA Document 218 Filed 02/08/10 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

their response to Flores POD 2, and Defendants have thirty days from the date of Plaintiff’s file

review to produce their response to Atkinson POD 6 and Flores PODs 1 and 3. 

II. Status of Defendants Garcia and Medrano

There is no evidence in the record that Defendants Garcia and Medrano waived service or

were personally served, and for that reason, the Court ordered Defendants’ counsel to address the

representation in his opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel that he had overlooked Plaintiff’s

discovery requests to Garcia and had not been served with discovery requests directed to Medrano. 

The Court reserved its ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to compel Garcia and Medrano to respond to his

discovery requests pending receipt of the status report. On May 13, 2009, Defendants’ current

counsel of record filed a status report clarifying that Garcia and Medrano are not represented. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants Garcia and Medrano to respond to his discovery

requests, filed September 4, 2008, is denied.

III. Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Atkinson POD 6 and Flores PODs 1-3,

filed June 12, 2008, is GRANTED, subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth

herein; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants Garcia and Medrano to respond to his

discovery requests, filed September 4, 2008, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 8, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:05-cv-00086-OWW -GSA Document 218 Filed 02/08/10 Page 3 of 3