Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01024/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01024-11/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

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

Plaintiff Benny Ford is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action is proceeding against Defendant Wiley for excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment and against Defendant Marshall for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. 

On May 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel responses to his requests for 

admissions. Defendants filed an opposition on June 17, 2014, and Plaintiff filed a reply on June 27, 

2014.

///

///

///

///

BENNY FORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

G. WILDEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01024-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

[ECF No. 52]

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 1 of 29
2

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

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of 

confinement. As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would 

otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to 

involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 37, Discovery and Scheduling Order, &5. Further, where 

otherwise discoverable information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or 

infringe upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in 

determining whether disclosure should occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. 

Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21, 104 S.Ct. 2199 (1984) (privacy rights or interests implicit in broad 

purpose and language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court 

for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing assertion of privilege); Soto 

v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a constitutionally-based right 

of privacy that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB 

PC, 2012 WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting inmate=s entitlement to inspect 

discoverable information may be accommodated in ways which mitigate institutional safety concerns); 

Robinson v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 

16, 2012) (issuing protective order regarding documents containing information which implicated the 

safety and security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for protective order and for redaction of information 

asserted to risk jeopardizing safety and security of inmates or the institution if released); Womack v. 

Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) 

(requiring defendants to submit withheld documents for in camera review or move for a protective 

order). 

However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The 

discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 2 of 29
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

discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 

1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties may obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party=s claim or defense, and for good cause, 

the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial 

if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

(quotation marks omitted).

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel 

bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV 

S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at 

*3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis 

v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 

This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the 

motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why 

the responding party=s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 

2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4. 

However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these 

procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigation; therefore, to the extent possible, the 

Court endeavors to resolve his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 

606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 

2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 

B. Motion to Compel

1. Request for Production of Documents

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 the following items in 

the responding party=s possession, custody or control: any designated documents or tangible things. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) (quotation marks omitted). “Property is deemed within a party’s ‘possession, 

custody, or control’ if the party has actual possession, custody, or control thereof or the legal right to 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 3 of 29
4

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

obtain the property on demand.” Allen v. Woodford, No. CV-F-05-1104 OWW LJO, 2007 WL 

309945, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007) (citing In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 

1995)); accord Bovarie v. Schwarzenegger, No. 08cv1661 LAB (NLS), 2011 WL 719206, at *4 (S.D. 

Cal. Feb. 22, 2011); Evans v. Tilton, No. 1:07CV01814 DLB PC, 2010 WL 1136216, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 

Mar. 19, 2010). 

In responding to discovery requests, a reasonable inquiry must be made, and if no responsive 

documents or tangible things exist, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1), the responding party should so state with 

sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the party made a reasonable inquiry and 

exercised due diligence, Uribe v. McKesson, No. 08cv1285 DMS (NLS), 2010 WL 892093, at *2-3 

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2010). If responsive documents do exist but the responsive party claims lack of 

possession, control, or custody, the party must so state with sufficient specificity to allow the Court (1) 

to conclude that the responses were made after a case-specific evaluation and (2) to evaluate the merit 

of that response. Ochotorena v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-01525-LJO-DLB (PC), 2010 WL 1035774, at 

*3-4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010). As with previously discussed forms of discovery, boilerplate 

objections do not suffice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B), (C); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 408 

F.3d at 1149. 

2. Defendant Wildey’s Responses to Plaintiff’ Request for Document Production 

One Through Seven

In request for production number one through seven, Plaintiff requested documents from his 

central, medical and mental health files. (See Pl’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 52 at 19-21.) Plaintiff 

argues these documents are relevant. 

Requested Document Number 1: 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) 602 Appeal, Log No. CCI-0-

09-01247, filed 7-17-2009, including but not limited to all statements made by Plaintiff, staff and 

inmates who were interviewed during fact finding inquiry, at all three levels of appeal.

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 4 of 29
5

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

Initial Response:

Defendant object to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, and 

it ... assumes facts not in evidence, specifically that statements were made by Plaintiff, staff and 

inmates “interviewed during the fact finding inquiry, at all three levels of appeal.” Due to the request 

being vague, ambiguous and overbroad, documents deemed confidential may be responsive, the 

disclosure of which would create a hazard to the safety and security of the institution and prison 

officials. Without waiving objections, after a diligent search, all documents responsive to the request 

are contained in plaintiff’s central file which is available for inspection and copying pursuant to 

institutional policies and procedures.

Defendant’s Reply to Motion to Compel:

Defendant argues that Plaintiff contends these documents are relevant, without providing any 

explanation as to how or why the records are relevant, and he argues that Defendant Wildey’s 

responses are “incomplete and evasive,” against without providing any authority justifying his 

argument. 

Defendant Wildey’s responses are complete because Plaintiff has equal access to documents 

contained within his central, medical and mental files. 

Requests numbers 1-7 all refer to documents that are available in Plaintiff’s central file. In 

fact, in request no. 1, Plaintiff demands a copy of “602 Appeal, Log No. CCI-0-09-01247,” but 

Plaintiff already has a copy of this grievance because he filed a copy of his grievance and responses in 

his complaint in this case. 

Plaintiff’s Response:

Plaintiff claims that he will not be issued the statements of all individuals interviewed without 

a full disclosure from the defendants or intervention by the courts. 

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. 

Defendant’s response to the request does not completely address Plaintiff’s full request 

because there is no indication whether interviews of Plaintiff, staff, and/or inmates exist and/or 

whether such documentation is within Plaintiff’s central file for which he may have access. Thus, 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 5 of 29
6

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

based on Defendant’s response the Court cannot determine whether Defendant made a reasonable 

effort to respond. Defendant is correct that Plaintiff did attach a copy of the applicable inmate 

grievance, and the director’s level review indicates that various individuals provided information 

relating to the incident. Defendant is advised that if confidential issues are involved, Defendant may 

raise appropriate objection(s) and request in camera review, if necessary. Accordingly, Defendant 

Wildey will be directed to file a supplemental response to this request.

Requested Document Number 2:

The complete (CDCR 114-A, file and inmate segregation records) limited to Plaintiff, which is 

located on the facility 4-A, in Unit 2 left officers station.

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds it is compound, vague, overly broad and not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving objections, 

documents responsive to this request are contained in Plaintiff’s central file which is equally available 

to plaintiff for inspection and copying pursuant to institutional policies and procedures. 

Defendant’s Reply to Motion to Compel:

Defendant argues that Plaintiff contends these documents are relevant, without providing any 

explanation as to how or why the records are relevant, and he argues that Defendant Wildey’s 

responses are “incomplete and evasive,” without providing any authority justifying his argument. 

Defendant Wildey’s responses are complete because Plaintiff has equal access to documents 

contained within his central, medical and mental files. 

Requests numbers 1-7 all refer to documents that are available in Plaintiff’s central file. 

Plaintiff’s Response:

Plaintiff contends in conclusory terms that he needs this information to provide the court and 

jury the motive and culpable state of mind involving the defendant’s despicable behavior.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s request is overbroad. 

It is not limited in time or scope to the events at issue in this action, nor is it limited to the incident 

involving Defendants Wildey and Marshall on July 16, 2009. Further, Defendant indicates that any 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 6 of 29
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

such documents are located in his central file for which Plaintiff has equal access. This response 

complies with Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that a responding party 

either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted to state an objection to the request. 

Requested Document Number 3:

All CDCR official and unofficial documents created by CDCR employees and CDCR 

prisoners that contain, mention, construe, or refer to any subject matter of the Plaintiff’s allegations 

against the Defendants G. Wildey and R. Marshall.

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds it is compound, vague, overly broad and not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Due to the overbreadth, 

documents deemed confidential may be responsive, the disclosure of which would create a hazard to 

the safety and security of the institution and prison officials. Without waiving objections, after a 

diligent search, all documents responsive to the request are contained in plaintiff’s central file which is 

available for inspection and copying pursuant to institutional policies and procedures.

Defendant’s Reply to Motion to Compel:

Defendant argues that Plaintiff contends these documents are relevant, without providing any 

explanation as to how or why the records are relevant, and he argues that Defendant Wildey’s 

responses are “incomplete and evasive,” without providing any authority justifying his argument. 

Defendant Wildey’s responses are complete because Plaintiff has equal access to documents 

contained within his central, medical and mental files. 

Requests numbers 1-7 all refer to documents that are available in Plaintiff’s central file. 

Plaintiff’s Response:

Plaintiff contends he needs to have the full transparency of what CDCR employees knew, 

prisoners knew, and when it was known involving his injuries as to the assault by Defendants. 

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff request is vague and overbroad. In 

addition, Defendants submit and Plaintiff does not refute that he has equal access to the documents 

within his central file and there is no allegations such documentation is outside of such file. 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 7 of 29
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

Requested Document Number 4:

Plaintiff’s CDCR central files in their entirety, which is located in the case records office at 

CSP-Corcoran Prison. Also note, Plaintiff has two central files under the same CDCR prison number. 

I am requesting copies of both central files.

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds it is burdensome, overly broad and not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Due to the overbreadth, 

documents deemed confidential may be responsive, the disclosure of which would create a hazard to 

the safety and security of the institution and prison officials. Without waiving objections, nonconfidential portions of Plaintiff’s central file are equally available to plaintiff for inspection and 

copying pursuant to institutional policies and procedures.

Defendant’s Reply to Motion to Compel:

Defendant argues that Plaintiff contends these documents are relevant, without providing any 

explanation as to how or why the records are relevant, and he argues that Defendant Wildey’s 

responses are “incomplete and evasive,” without providing any authority justifying his argument. 

Defendant Wildey’s responses are complete because Plaintiff has equal access to documents 

contained within his central, medical and mental files. 

Requests numbers 1-7 all refer to documents that are available in Plaintiff’s central file. In 

request nos. 4 – 6, Plaintiff demands his “CDCR central files in their entirety . . ., “medical files in 

their entirety . . .,” and “mental health files in their entirety ...” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 52 at 

19-20.) But Plaintiff has equal access to his central, medical and mental health files, simply by 

making a request to view the file. 

Plaintiff’s Response:

Plaintiff contends he is in need of such information to provide the court and jury with the 

motive and culpable state of mind and the defendant’s persistent willingness to attack and injure 

Plaintiff.

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 8 of 29
9

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

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome on Defendants. Further, Plaintiff has equal access to his central, medical and mental 

health files, simply making a request to view the file. (ECF No. 57, Declaration of Kimbrell at ¶¶ 12-

14.) 

Requested Document Number 5:

Plaintiff’s medical files in its entirety. Also note, Plaintiff has at least two medical files. I am 

requesting them both. 

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the ground it is burdensome, overly broad and not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving objections, 

plaintiff’s medical file is equally available to Plaintiff for inspection and copying pursuant to 

institutional policies and procedures.

Defendant’s Reply to Motion to Compel:

Defendant argues that Plaintiff contends these documents are relevant, without providing any 

explanation as to how or why the records are relevant, and he argues that Defendant Wildey’s 

responses are “incomplete and evasive,” without providing any authority justifying his argument. 

Defendant Wildey’s responses are complete because Plaintiff has equal access to documents 

contained within his central, medical and mental files. ...

Requests numbers 1-7 all refer to documents that are available in Plaintiff’s central file. In 

request nos. 4 – 6, Plaintiff demands his “CDCR central files in their entirety . . ., “medical files in 

their entirety . . .,” and “mental health files in their entirety ...” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 52 at 

19-20.) But Plaintiff has equal access to his central, medical and mental health files, simply by 

making a request to view the file. 

Plaintiff’s Response:

Plaintiff contends he needs his medical file to demonstrate to the court and jury that Plaintiff 

did not have any hand or wrist injuries until he was physically assaulted by Defendants. 

///

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 9 of 29
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

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome on Defendant. Further, Plaintiff has equal access to his medical file and he presents no 

evidence to the contrary.1

Requested Document Number 6:

Plaintiff’s mental health files in their entirety.

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds it is burdensome, overly broad and not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving objections, 

plaintiff’s mental health records are equally available to Plaintiff for inspection and copying pursuant 

to institutional policies and procedures.

Defendant’s Reply to Motion to Compel:

Defendant argues that Plaintiff contends these documents are relevant, without providing any 

explanation as to how or why the records are relevant, and he argues that Defendant Wildey’s 

responses are “incomplete and evasive,” without providing any authority justifying his argument. 

Defendant Wildey’s responses are complete because Plaintiff has equal access to documents 

contained within his central, medical and mental files. ...

Requests numbers 1-7 all refer to documents that are available in Plaintiff’s central file. In 

request nos. 4 – 6, Plaintiff demands his “CDCR central files in their entirety . . ., “medical files in 

their entirety . . .,” and “mental health files in their entirety ...” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 52 at 

19-20.) But Plaintiff has equal access to his central, medical and mental health files, simply by 

making a request to view the file. 

Plaintiff’s Response:

Plaintiff contends his mental file is necessary to give the jury and court involved in the case the 

motive and culpable state of mind of the Defendants.

 

1

Indeed, Defendant has submitted the declaration of M. Kimbrell, Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison, who 

declares and provides evidence that on December 20, 2013, at Plaintiff’s request, he was provided and signed a form 

acknowledging receipt of medical records from 2010 through 2013. (ECF No. 57, Decl. of M. Kimbrell, Ex. C.) 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 10 of 29
11

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

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request is overbroad and it not tailored to 

relevant information at the incident at issue here. Further, Plaintiff may inspect and copy his medical 

file by following the institutional procedures. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he complied with 

such procedures, but was denied access to his medical file.2 

Requested Document Number 7:

Plaintiff’s 114-A-1, 1882, 114-D-“B” chronos. These documents are maintained on the left 

side of the Plaintiff’s 114-A folder, which is located on the facility 4-A, in Unit 2 left officers 

stations...”

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection, documents responsive to this 

request are contained in Plaintiff’s central file which is equally available to Plaintiff for inspection and 

copying pursuant to institutional policies and procedures. 

Defendant’s Reply to Motion to Compel:

Defendant argues that Plaintiff contends these documents are relevant, without providing any 

explanation as to how or why the records are relevant, and he argues that Defendant Wildey’s 

responses are “incomplete and evasive,” without providing any authority justifying his argument. 

Defendant Wildey’s responses are complete because Plaintiff has equal access to documents 

contained within his central, medical and mental files. 

Requests numbers 1-7 all refer to documents that are available in Plaintiff’s central file. 

Plaintiff’s Response:

Plaintiff contends these documents are necessary to provide to the court and jury to determine 

the motivating factors behind the Defendants sadistic behavior and their culpable state of mind.

///

 

2

Defendant has submitted the declaration of M. Kimbrell, Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison, who declares 

and provides evidence that on January 24, 2014, at Plaintiff’s request, he was provided and signed a form acknowledging 

receipt of mental health records from 2009 through 2013. (ECF No. 57, Decl. of M. Kimbrell, Ex. D.) 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 11 of 29
12

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

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff may inspect and copy his medical file by 

following the institutional procedures. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he complied with such 

procedures, but was denied access to his central file. 

3. Amendment of Responses to Certain Requests for Document Productions3

As an initial matter, Defendants argue that although Plaintiff states he is unable to obtain 

copies of documents contained within his central file and within California Code of Regulations, title 

15 and the Department’s Operation Manuel (DOM), both are equally available to Plaintiff by 

contacting his counselor at the prison institution where he is housed. 

However, Defendants state that in an effort to cooperate and without waiving objections noted 

in their responses to request for document production, Defendants will provide the following 

documents in response to the request for production propounded by Defendants. 

4. Defendant Wildey’s Responses to Request for Document Production Eight 

Through Fifteen

Requested Document Number 8:

Copies to any and all documents, memos, chromos, training techniques, including the 

Department Operations Manuel, and the Operations Procedures Manual, that was authorized by the 

CDCR on or before 7-16-09, that (instructs correctional officers on what force is proper to use on 

prisoners). This includes but not limited to the lowest levels of physical force to lethal levels of 

physical force.

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and is 

burdensome. Due to the overbreadth, documents deemed confidential may be responsive, the 

 

3

The Court is mindful of the fact that Defendants amended certain responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests only after 

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. If any party attempts to withhold documents or provide adequate responses to discovery 

requests until the other side institutes litigation over the matter through a motion to compel or other relief, then the Court 

may be inclined to rely solely on the initial response in deciding the matter and for other relief as the court deems just. The 

court is very much attuned to the fact that litigation may require amendments to discovery responses in light of the focused 

litigation, but is also mindful that it often does not. Careful attention should be given to a first response so as to avoid

unnecessary litigation. 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 12 of 29
13

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

disclosure of which would create a hazard to the safety and security of the institution and prison 

officials. Without waiving these objections, responsive non-confidential documents, regarding use of 

force on inmates, in Defendant’s possession, custody, and control are contained in Title 15 of the 

California Code of Regulations and the Department Operations Manual, both of which are available to 

Plaintiff for inspection and copying in the prison law library.

Amended Response:

California Code of Regulations, title 15 (2009) sections 3268, 3268.1, 3270-3271, 3275-3279, 

and Department Operations Manuel section 51030 et. seq., provided in Attachment I.

Plaintiff’s Reply:

Plaintiff contends that he needs this documentation to have a clear understanding of what 

training the defendant’s had on July 16, 2009, concerning the experience and inexperience on the use 

of force. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. By way of supplemental response, 

Defendant provided Plaintiff with the relevant copies of the applicable California Code of Regulations 

and Department Operations Manual relating to the use of force. Without any specific claim by 

Plaintiff as to how this production was deficient, Defendant cannot be compelled to provide a further 

response.

Requested Document Number 9:

Copies to any and all documents, memos, chronos, training technics, including the Department 

Operations Manual and Operations Procedures Manuals that was authorized by CDCR on or before 7-

16-09, that instructed correctional officers on what is the proper way to handcuff a prisoner.

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time, burdensome, 

irrelevant, and is not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Due to the 

overbreadth, documents deemed confidential may be responsive, the disclosure of which would create 

a hazard to the safety and security of the institution and prison officials. Without waiving these 

objections, responsive non-confidential documents, regarding restraints used on inmates, including 

handcuffs, in Defendant’s possession, custody, and control are contained in Title 15 of the California 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 13 of 29
14

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

Code of Regulations and the Department Operations Manual, both of which are available to Plaintiff 

for inspection and copying in the prison law library. 

Amended Response:

California Code of Regulations, title 15 (2009) sections 3268.2, 3280, provided in Attachment 

II.

Plaintiff’s Reply:

Plaintiff contends he is in need of the documents to demonstrate to the court and jury that 

Defendants did not follow CDCR protocol or adhere to constitutional standards. Plaintiff is requesting 

copies of all documents that detail the training on the proper way to apply handcuffs. 

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. By way of supplemental response, Defendant 

provided Plaintiff with the relevant copies of the applicable California Code of Regulations and 

Department Operations Manual, including the use of restraints. Without any specific claim by 

Plaintiff as to how this production was deficient, Defendant cannot be compelled to provide a further 

response.

Requested Document Number 10:

Copies to any and all documents, memos, chromos, training technics, including the Department 

Operations Manual and Operations Procedures Manuals, that was authorized by the CDCR on or 

before 7-16-09, that instructed correctional officers on what “not” to do when applying handcuffs on a 

prisoner.

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time, burdensome, 

irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Due to the 

overbreadth, documents deemed confidential may be responsive, the disclosure of which would create 

a hazard to the safety and security of the institution and prison officials. Without waiving these 

objections, responsive non-confidential documents, regarding restraints used on inmates, including 

handcuffs, in Defendant’s possession, custody, and control are contained in Title 15 of the California 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 14 of 29
15

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

Code of Regulations and the Department Operations Manual, both of which are available to Plaintiff 

for inspection and copying in the prison law library.

Amended Response:

California Code of Regulations, title 15 (2009) sections 3268,2, 3280, provided in Attachment 

II.

Plaintiff’s Reply:

Plaintiff contends these documents are necessary to demonstrate to the court and jury that 

Defendant did not follow protocol established by the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation or the constitutional standards when applying handcuffs to him and willfully used 

excessive on Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims he is requesting documents that detail all the training the 

Defendant completed in the area of what not to do when applying handcuffs on prisoners. 

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request is overbroad and burdensome. 

Plaintiff did not request specifically documents as to the training of Defendant Wildey only as to what 

“not” to do when applying the use of restraints. Defendant provided the applicable regulations relating 

to the use of force and application of restraints, and no further response is warranted.

Requested Document Number 11:

Copies to any and all documents, memos, chromos, manuals, including the Department of 

Operations Manual and Operations Procedures Manual that was authorized by the CDCR on or before 

7-16-09, that instructed correctional officers what they “shall” do if they see a prisoner being 

physically assaulted by another officer.

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time, burdensome, 

and assumes facts not in evidence specifically that “prisoners are physically assaulted by officers.” 

Due to the overbreadth, documents deemed confidential may be responsive, the disclosure of which 

would create a hazard to the safety and security of the institution and prison officials. Without 

waiving these objections, responsive non-confidential documents, regarding officer’s duties owed in 

inmates, in Defendant’s possession, custody, and control are contained in Title 15 of the California 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 15 of 29
16

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

Code of Regulations and the Department Operations Manual, both of which are available to Plaintiff 

for inspection and copying in the prison law library.

Amended Response:

California Code of Regulations, title 15 (2009) section 3268, 3268.1, 3270-3271, 3275-3279, 

and Department Operations Manual section 51030 et. seq., provided in Attachment I.

Plaintiff’s Reply:

Plaintiff contends he needs these documents to show the court and jury that Defendant did not 

follow the protocol established by the CDCR. Plaintiff is specifically requesting the documents that 

detail the training Defendant Wildey received. 

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request is overbroad and burdensome. 

Plaintiff did not request specifically certain documents as to the training of Defendant Wildey on what 

he “shall” do if he during the observation of physical assault by another office. Defendant provided 

the applicable regulations relating to the use of force by officers. 

Requested Document Number 12:

Copies to any and all documents, memos, chromos, manuals, including the Department of 

Operations Manual and the Operation Procedures Manual that was authorized by the CDCR on or 

before 7-16-09, that instructed correctional officers what they (shall not) do if they see a prisoner 

being physically assaulted by another officer...

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time, burdensome, 

and assumes facts not in evidence specifically that “prisoners are physically assaulted by officers.” 

Due to the overbreadth, documents deemed confidential may be responsive, the disclosure of which 

would create a hazard to the safety and security of the institution and prison officials. Without 

waiving these objections, responsive non-confidential documents, regarding officer’s duties owed in 

inmates, in Defendant’s possession, custody, and control are contained in Title 15 of the California 

Code of Regulations and the Department Operations Manual, both of which are available to Plaintiff 

for inspection and copying in the prison law library.

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 16 of 29
17

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

Amended Response:

California Code of Regulations, title 15 (2009) sections 3268, 3268.1, 3270-3271, 3275-3279, 

and Department Operations Manual section 51030 et. seq., provided in Attachment I.

Plaintiff’s Reply:

Plaintiff contends he is in need of these documents to show the court and jury that Defendant 

did not follow the protocol established by the CDCR or the applicable constitutional standards. 

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. By way of 

supplemental response, Defendant provided Plaintiff with the relevant copies of the applicable 

California Code of Regulations and Department Operations Manual, including the use of restraints. 

Without any specific claim by Plaintiff as to how this production was deficient, Defendant cannot be 

compelled to provide a further response.

Requested Document Number 13:

Copies to any and all documents, memos, chromos, manuals, including the Department of 

Operations Manual and Operation Procedures Manuals that was authorized by the CDCR on or before 

7-16-09 that instructed correctional officers on what they “shall” do if they see a prisoner in pain and 

begging for help.

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time, burdensome, 

and assumes facts not in evidence specifically that officers “shall do” something “if a prisoner is in 

pain and begging for help.” Due to the overbreadth, documents deemed confidential may be 

responsive, the disclosure of which would create a hazard to the safety and security of the institution 

and prison officials. Without waiving these objections, responsive nonconfidential documents, 

regarding officer’s duties owed to inmates, in Defendant’s possession, custody, and control are 

contained in Title 15 of the CDCR Operations Manual, both of which are available to Plaintiff for 

inspection and copying in the prison law library.

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 17 of 29
18

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

Amended Response:

California Code of Regulations, title 15 (2009) sections 3004, 3268.1, provided in Attachment 

III.

Plaintiff’s Reply:

Plaintiff requests these documents to show the court and jury involved in the case that 

Defendant did not follow the protocol established by the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation or federal law.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. By way of supplemental response, Defendant 

provided Plaintiff with the relevant copies of the applicable California Code of Regulations and 

Department Operations Manual. Without any specific claim by Plaintiff as to how this production was 

deficient, Defendant cannot be compelled to provide a further response.

Requested Document Number 14:

Copies to any and all documents, memos, chromos, manuals, including the Department 

Operations Manual and Operation Procedures Manual that was authorized by the CDCR on or before 

7-16-09 that instructed correctional officers what they (shall not) do if they see a prisoner in pain and 

begging for help.

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time, burdensome, 

and assumes facts not in evidence specifically that officers “shall not do” something “if a prisoner is in 

pain and begging for help.” Due to the overbreadth, documents deemed confidential may be 

responsive, the disclosure of which would create a hazard to the safety and security of the institution 

and prison officials. Without waiving these objections, responsive non-confidential documents, 

regarding officer’s duties owed in inmates, in Defendant’s possession, custody, and control are 

contained in Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and the Department Operations Manuel, 

both of which are unavailable to Plaintiff for inspection and copying in the prison law library.

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 18 of 29
19

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

Amended Response:

California Code of Regulations, title 15 (2009) sections 2004, 3268.2, provided in Attachment 

III.

Plaintiff’s Reply:

Plaintiff requests these documents to show the court and jury that Defendant did not follow the 

protocol established by the CDCR or federal law. 

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. By way of supplemental response, Defendant 

provided Plaintiff with the relevant copies of the applicable California Code of Regulations and 

Department Operations Manual. Without any specific claim by Plaintiff as to how this production was 

deficient, Defendant cannot be compelled to provide a further response.

Requested Document Number 15:

Copies to any and all documents, memos, chromos, manuals, including the Department 

Operations Manual and Operation Procedures Manual that was authorized by the CDCR on or before 

7-16-09, that instructs or authorizes a correctional officer to squeeze a pair of handcuffs around a 

prisoner’s wrist with all their strength.

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time, burdensome, 

and assumes facts not in evidence specifically that officers “squeeze” pairs of handcuffs “around a 

prisoner’s writs with all their strength.” Due to the overbreadth, documents deemed confidential may 

be responsive, the disclosure of which would create a hazard to the safety and security of the 

institution and prison officials. Without waiving these objections, responsive non-confidential 

documents, regarding procedures for restraints used on inmates, in Defendant’s possession, custody, 

and control are contained in Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and the Department 

Operations Manual, both of which are available to Plaintiff for inspection and copying in the prison 

law library.

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 19 of 29
20

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

Amended Response:

California Code of Regulations, title 15 (2009) sections 3268.2, 3280, provided in Attachment 

II.

Plaintiff’s Reply:

Plaintiff does not provide a specific objection to this response in his reply to Defendants’ 

opposition.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. By way of supplemental response, Defendant 

provided Plaintiff with the relevant copies of the applicable California Code of Regulations and 

Department Operations Manual. Without any specific claim by Plaintiff as to how this production was 

deficient, Defendant cannot be compelled to provide a further response.

5. Defendant Wildey’s Responses to Request for Document Production Sixteen

Through Twenty-One

Requested Document Number 16:

A copy of Defendant G. Wildey’s CDCR’s complete prison record/files in its entirety as it was 

on the date of 7-16-09.

Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad as to time and 

subject matter, burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the documents requested 

are confidential and are part of Defendant’s personnel information and thus are protected from 

disclosure by the constitutional right to privacy, and various state and federal statutes governing the 

confidentiality of peace officer records, the official information privilege, California Government 

Code sections 6254, and California Evidence Code sections 1040, 1041, and 1043. No documents will 

be produced.

///

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 20 of 29
21

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’s Motion to Compel:

Plaintiff contends he needs these documents to show the court and jury the possible pattern of 

misconduct involving G. Wildey, and all personal information such as social security numbers, driver 

license information may be redacted. 

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request is vague and overbroad. 

Defendant Wildey’s prison record and/or file likely contain a myriad of unrelated information. 

Plaintiff’s request is both vague and overbroad, and he has not met his burden of demonstrating that 

these documents (whatever they may be) are relevant with the meaning of Rule 26. 

Requested Document Number 17:

Copies to any and all documents, memos, chromos, manuals, including the Department of 

Operations Manual and Operation Procedures Manual that was authorized by the CDCR on or before 

7-16-09 that instructed or authorized correctional officers to intentionally lie (under oath) during an 

interrogatory or admissions examination.

Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time, burdensome, 

irrelevant, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and assumes 

facts not in evidence, specifically that any officer “intentionally lied under oath to an interrogatory or 

request for admission.” Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds, there are no such 

documents.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel:

Plaintiff does not provide a specific objection to this response in either his motion to compel or 

reply to Defendants’ opposition.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Without waiving objections to the request, 

Defendant responded that no such documents exist. Accordingly, absent evidence to the contrary, 

which there is not, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response must be denied.

///

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 21 of 29
22

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

Requested Document Number 18:

Copies to any and all documents, memos, chronos, manuals, including the Department of 

Operations Manual and the Operations Procedures Manual that was authorized by the CDCR on or 

before 7-16-09, which instructed or authorized correctional officers to lie or knowingly give false 

statements during an institutional 602 appeal inquiry.

Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time, burdensome, 

irrelevant, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and assumes 

facts not in evidence, specifically that any officer “lied or knowingly gave false statements in a 602 

appeal inquiry.” Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds, there are no such documents.

Plaintiff’s Reply:

In his reply to Defendants’ opposition, Plaintiff contends that these documents are necessary to 

show the court and jury that Defendant did not follow the protocol established by the CDCR or federal 

law.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Without waiving objections to the request, Defendant 

responded that no such documents exist. Accordingly, absent evidence to the contrary, which there is 

not, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response must be denied.

 Requested Document Number 19:

Copies to any and all documents, memos, chronos, manuals, including the Department of 

Operations Manual and Operations Procedures Manual that was authorized by the CDCR on or before 

7-16-09 that made “any” type of references to the (code of silence).

Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time, burdensome, 

irrelevant, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and assumes 

facts not in evidence, specifically that there is “any type of reference to a code of silence” or that there 

is a “code of silence.” Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds there are no such 

documents.

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 22 of 29
23

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’s Reply:

Plaintiff contends he needs these documents to show the court and jury that the Defendant is 

part of a systemic problem where there is an unwritten policy that CDCR employees violate the law 

because they lie or knowingly make false statements in reports or inquiries.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Without waiving objections to the request, 

Defendant responded that no such documents exist. Accordingly, absent evidence to the contrary, 

which there is not, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response must be denied.

 Requested Document Number 20:

Copies to any and all previous law suits that you have been named as a defendant.

Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to the terms 

“named as a defendant,” overly broad as to time and subject matter, burdensome, irrelevant, is not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is inadmissible character 

evidence. Due to the overbreadth, Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the documents 

requested are confidential and cannot [be turned] over to plaintiff due to safety and security concerns 

of the institution, prison officials and inmates and would violate the privacy rights of prison officials 

and inmates. Insofar as Plaintiff is requesting information directly pertaining to Defendant, that 

information is part of Defendant’s personnel information and thus is protected from disclosure by the 

constitutional right to privacy, and various state and federal statutes governing the confidentiality of 

peace officer records, the official information privilege, California Government Code section 6254, 

and California Evidence Code sections 1040, 1041, and 1043. Without waiving said objections, 

Defendant responds: Defendant does not recall any previous lawsuits where he was named a 

Defendant and after a diligent and reasonable search, no responsive documents were located.

Plaintiff’s Reply:

Plaintiff contends he needs these documents to show the court and jury the possible pattern of 

unlawful conduct by the Defendant.

///

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 23 of 29
24

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

Ruling: 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Without waiving his objection, Defendant responded 

that he did not recall any previous lawsuits and after a diligent and reasonable search no such 

information was located. Accordingly, absent evidence to the contrary, which there is not, Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel a further response must be denied.

Requested Document Number 21:

Copies to any and all previous incidents or circumstances that forced or caused you to seek 

psychological help in a mental health program.

Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad as to time and 

subject matter, burdensome, irrelevant, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence and assumes facts not in evidence, specifically that there were “any previous 

incidents or circumstances that forced or caused Defendant to seek psychological help in a mental 

health program.” Moreover, the information requested is part of Defendant’s personnel and medical 

information and thus is protected from disclosure by the constitutional right to privacy, and various 

state and federal statutes governing the confidentiality of peace officer records, the official information 

privilege, California Government Code section 6254, California Evidence Code sections 1040, 1041, 

and 1043 and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. No documents will be 

produced. 

Plaintiff’s Reply:

Plaintiff contends these documents are necessary to show the court and jury the possible 

mental disorder of G. Wildey which could have led or assisted in his behavior on 7-16-09 these 

documents could also alter the proper authorities that the defendant is a serious threat to the safety and 

security of the correctional system.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request is vague, overbroad, and 

irrelevant. This claim is proceeding against Defendant Wildey for excessive force, and there is no 

basis as to why or how Defendant Wildey’s psychological condition is relevant to this action. 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 24 of 29
25

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. Defendant Marshall’s Responses to Request for Document Production 

One Through Five4

Requested Document Number One:

Copies to any and all documents, memos, chromos, manuals, including the Department of 

Operations Manual and the Operation Procedures Manual that was authorized by the CDCR on or 

before 7-16-2009 that (instructed correctional officers what they “shall” do if they see a prisoner being 

physically assaulted by another officer).

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time, burdensome, 

and assumes facts not in evidence specifically that “prisoners are physically assaulted by officers.” 

Due to the overbreadth, documents deemed confidential may be responsive, the disclosure of which 

would create a hazard to the safety and security of the institution and prison officials. Without 

waiving these objections, responsive non-confidential documents, regarding officer’s duties owed in 

inmates, in Defendant’s possession, custody, and control are contained in Title 15 of the California 

Code of Regulations and the Department Operations Manual, both of which are available in the prison 

law library for inspection and copying.

Amended Response:

California Code of Regulations, title 15 (2009) sections 3268, 3268.2, 3270-3271, 3275-3279, 

and Department Operations Manual section 51030 et. seq., provided in “Wildey’s Responses to RFPsAttachment I.” 

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. By way of supplemental response, Defendant 

provided Plaintiff with the relevant copies of the applicable California Code of Regulations and 

Department Operations Manual. Without any specific claim by Plaintiff as to how this production was 

deficient, Defendant cannot be compelled to provide a further response.

 

4

In response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Defendant Marshall amended his responses to Plaintiff’s Request for 

Documents Numbers One and Two. 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 25 of 29
26

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

Requested Document Number Two:

Copies to any and all documents, memos, chronos, manuals, including the Department 

Operations Manual and the Operation Procedures Manual that was authorized by the CDCR on or 

before 7-16-2009 that instructed Correctional Officers what they “shall” do if they see a prisoner in 

pain and begging for help.

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time, burdensome, 

and assumes facts not in evidence specifically that officers “shall do” something “If a prisoner is in 

pain and begging for help.” Due to the overbreadth, documents deemed confidential may be 

responsive, the disclosure of which would create a hazard to the safety and security of the institution 

and prison officials. Without waiving these objections, responsive on-confidential documents, 

regarding officer’s duties owed in inmates, in Defendant’s possession, custody, and control are 

contained in Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and the Department Operations Manual, 

both of which are available in the prison law library for inspection and copying.

Amended Response:

California Code of Regulations, title 15 (2009) sections 3004, 3268.1, provided in “Wildey’s 

Responses to RFPs-Attachment III.”

Plaintiff’s Reply:

Plaintiff contends he is in need of these copies to show the court and jury that R. Marshall did 

not follow the protocol established by the CDCR or federal law.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. By way of supplemental response, Defendant 

provided Plaintiff with the relevant copies of the applicable California Code of Regulations and 

Department Operations Manual. Without any specific claim by Plaintiff as to how this production was 

deficient, Defendant cannot be compelled to provide a further response.

Requested Document Number 3:

A copy of Defendant R. Marshall’s CDCR’s complete prison record/files in its entirety – as it 

was on the date 7-16-2009.

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 26 of 29
27

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

Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad as to time and 

subject matter, burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the documents requested 

are confidential and is part of Defendant’s personnel information and thus is protected from disclosure 

by the confidential right to privacy, and various state and federal statutes governing the confidentiality 

of peace officer records, the official information privilege, California Government Code section 6254, 

and California Evidence Code sections 1040, 1041, 1043. No documents will be produced.

Plaintiff’s Reply:

Plaintiff contends he needs this document to the court and jury the possible pattern of 

misconduct by Defendant Marshall, and any personal matter such as social security numbers and 

driver’s license number may be redacted.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s request is vague and overbroad. Defendant Marshal’s prison record and/or file 

likely contain a myriad of unrelated information. Plaintiff’s request is both vague and overbroad, and 

he has not met his burden of demonstrating that these documents (whatever they may be) are relevant 

with the meaning of Rule 26. 

Requested Document Number 4:

Copies to any and all previous lawsuits that you have been named as a Defendant.

Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad as to time and 

subject matter, burdensome, irrelevant, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence, and is inadmissible character evidence. Due to the overbreadth, Defendant 

objects to this request on the grounds that the documents requested are confidential and cannot [be 

turned] over to Plaintiff due to safety and security concerns to the institution, prison officials and 

inmates and would violate the privacy rights of prison officials and inmates. Insofar as Plaintiff is 

requesting information directly pertaining to Defendant, that information is part of Defendant’s 

personnel information and thus is protected from disclosure by the constitutional right to privacy, and 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 27 of 29
28

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

various state and federal statutes governing the confidentiality of peace officer records, the official 

information privilege California Government Code section 6254, and California Evidence Code 

section 1040, 1041, and 1043. Without waiving said objections, Defendant does not recall any 

previous lawsuits where he was named a Defendant and after a diligent and reasonable search, no 

responsive documents were located.

Plaintiff’s Reply:

Plaintiff needs these documents to show the court and jury the possible pattern of unlawful 

conduct by Defendant Marshall.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Without waiving his objection, Defendant 

responded that he did not recall any previous lawsuits and after a diligent and reasonable search no 

such information was located. Accordingly, absent evidence to the contrary, which there is not, 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response must be denied.

Requested Document Number 5:

Copies to any and all (40 plus hours of training) you received from the CDCR on or before 7-

16-09, concerning the use of force training your received when dealing with prisoners.

Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time, burdensome, 

irrelevant, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and requests 

confidential peace officer personnel documents protected by the official information privilege, 

California Government Code section 6254, and California Evidence Code sections 1040, 1041, and 

1043. 

Without waiving said objections, Defendants will produce use of force training records for 

Defendant for 2009, which are attached as Attachment I.

Plaintiff’s Reply:

Plaintiff requests these documents to show the court and jury that Defendant Marshall did not 

follow protocol established by the CDCR or federal laws. Plaintiff contends he is requesting the 

detailed training of all 40 plus hours training the Defendant received. 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 28 of 29
29

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

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Without waiving any objections, Defendant provided 

Plaintiff with the relevant copies of the applicable training Defendant Marshall in 2009. The 

document reveals that in 2009, Defendant Marshall underwent the following training: on September 

28, 2009, he completed a Less than Lethal Weapons training conducted by Instructor Goodson, for 

1.00 hour of credit; on October 1, 2009, he completed a Use of Force training, conducted by Instructor 

Hollinge, for 3.00 hours of credit, on November 17, 2009, he underwent a Use-of-Force training, for 

1.00 hour of credit, and on November 20, 2009, he underwent a Use-of-Force training, conducted by 

Instructor Tyson, for 4.00 hours of credit. Because Plaintiff’s claim revolves around a single incident 

occurring on July 16, 2009, Defendant Marshall provided an adequate response as to the training 

relevant to that period of time in 2009. 

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Requested Document Number One propounded on 

Defendant Wildey is GRANTED, and Defendant Wildey shall file a supplemental 

response to the request within thirty days from the date of service of this order; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED in all other respects. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/02/14 Page 29 of 29