Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02097/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02097-10/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

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Guillermo Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

second amended complaint, filed on October 24, 2012, against Defendants Saylor and McCue for 

denial of access to the court. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Saylor and McCue refused him access to 

a telephone for a court hearing in a pending state civil action while he was incarcerated at Sierra 

Conservation Center in August 2008. 

On April 9, 2014, the Court extended the discovery deadline solely to permit Plaintiff to obtain 

responses to his requests for admissions and interrogatories from Defendant McCue. The Court also 

indicated that Plaintiff would have time to review those responses and file any motion to compel 

related to those responses. (ECF No. 84, p. 4.) 

GUILLERMO GARCIA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. MIX, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-02097-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(ECF No. 85)

Case 1:10-cv-02097-BAM Document 106 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 11
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

On May 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant McCue to provide 

further responses to his interrogatories and requests for admissions. Plaintiff also seeks to compel 

Defendants’ responses to his production requests, which were served on April 22, 2014. (ECF No. 

85.) Defendants opposed the motion on June 9, 2014. (ECF No. 94.) Plaintiff replied on August 19, 

2014. (ECF No. 100.) The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 

II. Discussion

A. Interrogatories

An interrogatory is a written question propounded by one party to another who must answer 

under oath and in writing. Interrogatories are limited to anything within the permissible scope of 

discovery, namely, any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 33, 26(b)(1). The responding party is to answer each interrogatory fully, to the extent that it is 

not objected to, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objection must be stated with specificity, Fed. R.

Civ. P. 33(b)(4). Generally, the responding party does not need to conduct extensive research in 

answering the interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made. Evans v. Tilton, 2010 

WL 1136216, at * 6 (E.D. Cal. Mar.19, 2010).

Although not entirely clear from his moving papers, Plaintiff appears to seek further responses 

to Interrogatories (ROGs) 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, and17 directed to Defendant McCue.

ROG 4: “If you contend that on the case Garcia v. LAPD, Case No. BC356199, you did 

received prior orders from the court requesting you to allow Garcia to use the telephone to Appear in 

court, before August 22, 2008. State all the dates were you were informed, either in writing or by 

facsimile.” 

Response: Defendant does not recall receiving any order from the Los Angeles County 

Superior Court in case No. BC356199 concerning Plaintiff’s telephonic appearance. Defendant is 

informed that the Superior Court did not issue any such order and informed Plaintiff that it was his 

responsibility to arrange directly with court or CourtCall for his telephonic appearance.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to ROG 4 is denied. Defendant 

McCue indicates both that she did not recall receiving an order and that the Superior Court did not 

Case 1:10-cv-02097-BAM Document 106 Filed 10/27/14 Page 2 of 11
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

issue any such order. Defendant McCue cannot be compelled to provide a further response regarding 

a Superior Court order that was not issued.

ROG 8: “If you contend that it was not you, who allowed Garcia to use the telephone to 

appear Via Court Call on Garcia v. Morris, case no. BD427954, on February 11, 2008, at 8:30 a.m. 

identify all individuals (including full name and last known contact information) who have knowledge 

of any fact in support of you contention.”

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, vague, calls 

for speculation, lacks foundation, and is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence because it is beyond the scope of this litigation. Without waiving 

any objection, and after a reasonable search and inquiry, Defendant does not know, and she has no 

documents from which to refresh her recollection, whether her office arranged for Plaintiff’s 

appearance in case No. BD427954, whether a staff member in Plaintiff’s housing unit arranged for the 

call, of if Plaintiff used the dayroom phones.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to ROG 8 is denied. Defendant 

McCue has indicated that she does not know the answer and that there are no documents from which 

to refresh her recollection. Defendant McCue cannot be compelled to provide information that she 

does not know.

ROG 9: “If you contend that it was not you, who allowed Garcia to use the telephone to 

appear Via Court Call on Garcia v. Berumen, case no. BD417861, on May 5, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. 

Identify all individuals (including full name and last known contact information) who have knowledge 

of any fact in support of your contention.” 

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, vague, calls 

for speculation, lacks foundation, and is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence because it is beyond the scope of this litigation. Without waiving 

any objection, and after a reasonable search and inquiry, Defendant does not know, and she has no 

documents from which to refresh her recollection, whether her office arranged for Plaintiff’s 

appearance in case No. BD417861, whether a staff member in Plaintiff’s housing unit arranged for the 

call, or if Plaintiff used the dayroom phones.

Case 1:10-cv-02097-BAM Document 106 Filed 10/27/14 Page 3 of 11
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

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to ROG 9 is denied. Defendant 

McCue has indicated that she does not know the answer and that she has no documents from which to 

refresh her recollection. Defendant McCue cannot be compelled to provide information that she does 

not know.

ROG 10: “If you contend that CDCR is not obligated to provide assistance in civil matters 

involving inmates, if civil matter is between two private citizens and does not involved CDCR. State 

the facts in support of your contention.”

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague in its entirety, 

lacks foundation, and calls for speculation. Without waiving any objection, Defendant is not 

contending that CDCR was not required to provide assistance in civil matters. If a court in a civil 

lawsuit ordered Defendant to take some action in that lawsuit, such as arranging for the inmate’s 

telephonic appearance, Defendant was required to comply with that order. But as stated above in 

response to Interrogatory No. 2, absent a court order, Defendant and her staff were not required to 

arrange for an inmate’s telephonic appearance in a civil lawsuit, although Defendant and prison staff 

were free to do so as a courtesy or general goodwill to assist the inmate if the inmate provided ample 

notice. 

ROG 11: “Please describe how you were kept informed, if at all, that CDCR is not obligated 

to provide assistance in civil matters involving inmates, if civil matter between two private citizens 

and does not involve CDCR.” 

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague in its entirety, 

lacks foundation, and calls for speculation. Without waiving any objections, Defendant is not 

contending that CDCR was not required to provide assistance in civil matters. If a court in a civil 

lawsuit ordered Defendant to take some action in that lawsuit, such as arranging for the inmate’s 

telephonic appearance, Defendant was required to comply with that order. But as stated above in 

response to Interrogatory No. 2, absent a court order, Defendant and her staff were not required to 

arrange for an inmate’s telephonic appearance in a civil lawsuit, although Defendant and prison staff 

were free to do so as a courtesy or general goodwill to assist the inmate if the inmate provided ample 

notice.

Case 1:10-cv-02097-BAM Document 106 Filed 10/27/14 Page 4 of 11
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

To the extent Plaintiff is asking Defendant how she was kept informed of CDCR policy or 

procedure changes or updates concerning the operations of the Litigations Office, such information 

was provided by way of updates to the Title 15, Department Operations Manual (DOM), or local 

operational procedures. Such information was also disseminated through memorandums, on the job 

training, or yearly In-Service Training. 

ROG 12: “Please identify all individuals (including full name and last know contact 

information, who have knowledge of any fact in support of your contention that “CDCR is not 

obligated to provide assistance in civil matters involving inmate, if the civil matter is between two 

private citizens and does not involved CDCR. As you asserted on the First and Second Level 

Response of my Inmate / Parole Appeal Form (CDC 602) Log No. SCC-08-01122, dated December 

2008, and January 26, 2009.” 

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague in its entirety, 

lacks foundation, and calls for speculation. Without waiving any objection, Defendant did not author 

the first-level response to Plaintiff’s appeal No. SCC-08-1122, and thus, did not make the assertion 

Plaintiff attributes to her. Defendant identifies Correctional Counsel III D. Perez and P. Rawlinson 

who signed the first-level response to his appeal. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to ROGs 10, 11 and 12 is denied. 

Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, Defendant McCue’s response is not misleading. The response 

indicates that Defendant is not contending that CDCR is not obligated to provide assistance in civil 

matters. Further, Defendant appropriately responded to ROG 12 regarding the authors of the first 

level response to his appeal, which reportedly contained the statement at issue. 

ROG 14: “Please describe any actions you took in response to the allegations of access to the 

court, and not providing accommodations to use of the telephone for Garcia to appear in court.” 

Response: Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s appeal, subsequently assigned Log No. SCC-08-

1122, at the informal level and denied Plaintiff’s allegations.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to ROG 14 is denied. It is unclear 

what further response Plaintiff believes that Defendant McCue failed to provide. 

Case 1:10-cv-02097-BAM Document 106 Filed 10/27/14 Page 5 of 11
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

ROG 16: “Identify any parties who were on duty such as your supervisor or any other person 

in a higher position, in the litigation’s office on August 22, 2008, between 8:15 a.m. and 930 a.m.”

Response: After a reasonable search and inquiry, Defendant does not recall, and she has no 

document from which to refresh her recollection. As the Litigation Coordinator, Defendant had an 

assistant from time to time in the office, but she does not recall if she had an assistant on August 22, 

2008.

ROG 17: “Did you asked any of those identified persons on duty such as your supervisor or 

any body at all, if they can help you solve the problem G. Saylor was having with Garcia attempting to 

use the telephone to appear at court on August 22, 2008.” 

Response: After a reasonable search and inquiry, Defendant does not recall if there was 

anyone else in her office at the time she spoke with Saylor, and she has no document from which to 

refresh her recollection. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to ROGs 16 and 17 is denied. 

Defendant McCue cannot provide information that she does not recall or that is no longer available to 

her from another source. Defendant McCue is no longer employed by the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation. Further, there is no indication that a specific document would contain 

the requested information responsive to Plaintiff’s narrow requests. 

B. Requests for Admissions

“A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending 

action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the 

application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described 

documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). Rule 36 provides:

If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the 

answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the 

substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or 

deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or 

deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a 

reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable 

inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it 

to admit or deny. 

Case 1:10-cv-02097-BAM Document 106 Filed 10/27/14 Page 6 of 11
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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).

“The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5), and as with 

other forms of discovery, it is well established that boilerplate objections do not suffice, e.g., 

Thompson v. Yates, 2011 WL 5975469, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011).

Finally, “[t]he requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or 

objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). “Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that 

an answer be served. On finding that an answer does not comply with this rule, the court may order 

either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.” Id. 

Although not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to Request for 

Admission (“RFA”) 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20. 

RFA 2: “Admit that you did not request for defendant Saylor to verify if Inmate Garcia in fact 

had on hand court documents indicating by the Superior Court that he was given permission to appear 

telephonically on 8-22-08.” 

Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds it is vague, calls for speculation, 

and lacks foundation. Without waiving any objection, responding party cannot admit or deny this 

request because she does not recall whether or not she asked Saylor if he had any document from the 

court granting Plaintiff permission to appear telephonically, and she has no documents from which to 

refresh her recollection.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to RFA 2 is denied. Defendant 

McCue has represented that she cannot recall and that she does not have access to records or 

documents from which to refresh her recollection. Defendant McCue cannot be compelled to admit or 

to deny information that she does not recall from a conversation in August 2008. Additionally, there 

is no indication that Plaintiff will be prejudiced by any inability to recall whether or not Defendant 

McCue asked Saylor if he had documents about the court hearing. 

RFA 4: “Admit you have granted several other Court Calls and have allowed plaintiff Garcia 

to use the Institution Unit Office’s telephone, before 8-22-08.” 

Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, vague, calls for 

speculation, lacks foundation, and is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

Case 1:10-cv-02097-BAM Document 106 Filed 10/27/14 Page 7 of 11
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

of admissible evidence because it is beyond the scope of this litigation. Without waiving any 

objection, responding party cannot admit or deny this request because she does not recall having 

scheduled Plaintiff’s CourtCall appearances before August 22, 2008, and she has no documents from 

which to refresh her recollection. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to RFA 4 is denied. Defendant 

McCue has represented that she cannot recall and that she does not have access to records or 

documents from which to refresh her recollection. Defendant McCue cannot be compelled to admit or 

to deny information that she does not recall. Additionally, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the 

requested information is relevant to Plaintiff’s August 22, 2008 hearing. 

RFA 8: “Admit that on any of the Request for Admissions numbers 5, 6, 7, you did not advice 

Mr. Garcia that you required notification from the court before you would allow him to use the 

telephone, as you stated on his CDC-602 Appeal.”

Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, calls 

for speculation, lacks foundation, and is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence because it is beyond the scope of this litigation. Without waiving 

any objection, responding party cannot admit or deny this request because she does not recall having 

scheduled Plaintiff’s telephonic appearances for February 11, May 5, or July 30, 2008, and she has not 

documents from which to refresh her recollection. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to RFA 8 is denied. RFAs 5, 6 and 7 

are requests to admit that Defendant McCue allowed Plaintiff to appear in superior court cases via 

CourtCall on May 5, 2008, February 11, 2008, and July 30, 2008. Defendant McCue has represented 

that she does not recall scheduling such appearances and she does not have documents to refresh her 

recollection. Additionally, Plaintiff has not demonstrated how court appearances in May, February 

and July 2008 are relevant to his claim regarding the August 22, 2008 hearing. 

RFA 9: “Admit that Plaintiff Garcia served you with court minute orders and confirmation 

from the Court Call Appearances 2 to 3 weeks prior to the court call appearances on case no. BD417861, on May 5, 2008, case no. BD-417861, on July 30, 2008, and on case no. BD-427954, on 

February 11, 2008.”

Case 1:10-cv-02097-BAM Document 106 Filed 10/27/14 Page 8 of 11
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

Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, vague, calls for 

speculation, lacks foundation, and is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence because it is beyond the scope of this litigation. Without waiving any 

objection, responding party cannot admit or deny this request because she does not recall having 

scheduled Plaintiff’s telephonic appearances for February 11, May 5, or July 30, 2008, and she has no 

documents from which to refresh her recollection.

Ruling: For the same reasons state above with respect to RFA No. 8, Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel a further response to RFA 9 is denied. 

RFA 10: “Admit that before May 05, 2008, the superior court in Garcia v. Berumen, case no. 

BD417861, did not issue and order directing CDCR or SCC staff to make accommodations for Garcia 

to appear by telephone or Court Call for the hearing on May 05, 2008.”

Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, vague, calls for 

speculation, lacks foundation, and is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence because it is beyond the scope of this litigation. Without waiving any 

objection, responding party cannot admit or deny this request because she does not recall having 

scheduled Plaintiff’s telephonic appearance on May 5, 2008, or Plaintiff informing her of such a 

hearing, and she has no documents from which to refresh her recollection. 

Ruling: For the same reasons state above with respect to RFA No. 8, Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel a further response to RFA 10 is denied.

RFA 11: “Admit that before July 30, 2008, the superior court in Garcia v. Berumen, case no. 

BD 417861, did not issue an order directing CDCR or SCC staff to make accommodations for Garcia 

to appear by telephone or Court Call for he hearing on July 30, 2008.”

Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, vague, calls for 

speculation, lacks foundation, and is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence because it is beyond the scope of this litigation. Without waiving any 

objection, responding party cannot admit or deny this request because she does not recall having 

scheduled Plaintiff’s telephonic appearance on July 30, 2008, or Plaintiff informing her of such a 

hearing, and she has no documents from which to refresh her recollection.

Case 1:10-cv-02097-BAM Document 106 Filed 10/27/14 Page 9 of 11
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: For the same reasons state above with respect to RFA No. 8, Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel a further response to RFA 11 is denied.

RFA 18: “Admit that you stated on Garcia’s CDCR-602 Appeal at the First Level dated 12-

04-2008 (see exhibit at p. 5 of plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with attached 602 Appeal Log. No. 

SCC-X-08-01122). Admit that that you stated “(CDCR” “is not obligated to provide staff 

assistance in civil matter involving inmates” “If the civil matter between two private citizen and 

does not involve the CDCR.”.” 

Response: Denied.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to RFA 18 is denied. Defendant 

McCue has denied the request for admission. Contrary to Plaintiff’s apparent assertion, Defendant 

McCue is not required to provide an explanation for her denial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). 

RFA 19: “Admit that on July 31, 2008, Garcia filed a Staff Complaint against you for 

allegedly attempting to transfer him to Pleasant Valley, Log SCC-X-08-00977.”

Response: Denied.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to RFA 19 is denied. Defendant 

McCue has denied the request for admission. Contrary to Plaintiff’s apparent assertion, Defendant 

McCue is not required to provide an explanation for her denial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).

RFA 20: “Admit that 22 days later, on August 22, 2008 You retaliated by denying Garcia to 

use the telephone, when he was supposed to Appear by telephone of court call on case no. BC-356199, 

because on July 31, 2008 he had filed a staff complaint against you.” 

Response: Denied. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to RFA 19 is denied. Defendant 

McCue has denied the request for admission. Contrary to Plaintiff’s apparent assertion, Defendant 

McCue is not required to provide an explanation for her denial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).

C. Requests for Production 

On April 22, 2014, Plaintiff served Defendants with his request for production of documents. 

Defendants did not respond. Plaintiff now seeks an order compelling production. 

Case 1:10-cv-02097-BAM Document 106 Filed 10/27/14 Page 10 of 11
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

Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, served on April 22, 2014, was not authorized 

by the Court. As noted above, on April 9, 2014, the Court extended the discovery deadline “solely to 

permit Plaintiff to obtain responses to requests for admission and interrogatories from Defendant 

McCue.” (ECF No. 84, p. 4.) The Court did not permit the service of any other discovery in this 

matter by any party. As such, Defendants were not obligated to provide responses. 

To the extent Plaintiff argues that Defendant McCue was required to produce documents in 

response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories or requests for admissions, he is incorrect. The Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure permit, but do not require, an answering party to produce documents in response to 

interrogatories. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) (offering option to produce records in response to 

interrogatories). 

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to his request for production of 

documents shall be denied. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on May 21, 2014, is HEREBY 

DENIED. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-02097-BAM Document 106 Filed 10/27/14 Page 11 of 11