Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750-13/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

ROBERTO M. GARCIA, Jr.,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MATTHEW M. JUAREZ, Jr.,

 Defendant.

1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG-PC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 41.)

ORDER FOR DEFENDANT JUAREZ TO 

PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES AS 

INSTRUCTED BY THIS ORDER, WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Roberto M. Garcia Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 

Complaint commencing this action on May 8, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the 

First Amended Complaint, filed on June 14, 2013, against defendant Sergeant Matthew M. 

Juarez, Jr. (“Defendant”) for excessive force. 

On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses by defendant 

Juarez to Plaintiff‟s first request for production of documents. (Doc. 41.) On May 4, 2015,

Defendant filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 43.) 

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel is now before the Court.

II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery 

regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R.

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 49 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 7
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

Civ. P. 26(b). “Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. A party may 

propound requests for production of documents that are within the scope of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may 

move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or 

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have 

„broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 16.‟” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 

Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). 

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

Court endeavors to resolve Plaintiff‟s motion to compel on its merits. Hunt, 672 F.3d at 616; 

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.)

III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff‟s First Request for the Production of Documents lists thirteen requests for 

documents and other materials relating to the incident on May 23, 2011 that is described in his 

complaint, such as the “incident commander review report of May 23, 2011” and “regional use 

of force coordinator report.” (Doc. 41 at 12.) Defendant did not produce any documents in 

response. Instead, Defendant served 25 pages of Objections. As to eleven of the requests, 

Defendant inserted the same eight boilerplate objections, and then one objection indicating 

whether Defendant had the document or not. As to one request discussed below, Defendant 

failed to object. Defendant also copied the same eight boilerplate objections in its opposition to 

the motion to compel, without describing how they specifically applied to any given request, 

and then stated that Plaintiff failed to rebut each and every boilerplate objection. 

\\

\\

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 49 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 7
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

Notably, Defendant makes no specific showing as to any specific document request. 

Moreover, it is clear that many of the boilerplate objections do not apply to many of the 

document requests. See, e.g., Response to Request for Production 3 (objecting that “Report of 

executive review committee-use of force/misconduct allegation CDCR form 3036-A (9/09) 

concerning this matter” is “vague and ambiguous” and “seeks records that are irrelevant”). 

(Doc. 41at 21:15-16.)

At the outset, this Court is not required to give boilerplate objections any weight. See

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 

(9th Cir. 2005) (“We hold that boilerplate objections or blanket refusals inserted into a response 

to a Rule 34 request for production of documents are insufficient to assert a privilege.”); A. 

Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (“As an initial matter, 

general or boilerplate objections such as “overly burdensome and harassing” are improper—

especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections. 

Similarly, boilerplate relevancy objections, without setting forth any explanation or argument 

why the requested documents are not relevant, are improper.”) (internal citations omitted).

Defendant‟s use of only boilerplate objections and failure to produce any documents 

whatsoever makes the Court question Defendant‟s good faith in responding to the discovery 

requests. This conclusion is supported by Defendant‟s discussion of the meet and confer 

requirements. It appears that Plaintiff asked for a meet and confer on March 10, 2015. 

Defendant failed to respond for over a month, and thus Plaintiff filed this motion on April 20, 

2015. Defendant not only claims that he lacked “a chance to serve a written response,” in that 

time, but asks this Court to deny Plaintiff‟s motion because Plaintiff failed to meet and confer. 

Defendant‟s responses are not well taken and indicate that Defendant did not abide by its 

discovery obligations in good faith.

Turning to the specific requests, Defendant claims not to possess documents in response 

to Request 1 (incident commander review report of May 23, 2011), Request 2 (Regional use of 

force coordinator report DCDR form 3034-A-(9/09), Request 3 (Report of executive review 

committee-use of force/misconduct allegation CDCR form 3036-A (9/09) concerning this 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 49 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 7
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

matter), Request 4 (report of executive committee critique and qualitative evaluation/analysis), 

Request 5 (copy from the report from the investigation conducted by internal affairs agent M. 

Dunlop), Request 7 (copy of the video recording by Lt. Ostransa and Sgt. Krby of plaintif‟s 

interview); and Request 13 (a picture where the event took place). 

The Court cannot compel what the Defendant does not have. That said, whether a party 

has possession of requested documents and materials is only part of the standard. Parties are 

under an obligation to produce any documents within their possession, custody and control. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Defendant did not address whether he has custody and control of these 

documents, i.e., whether he had access to them in his position at the prison.

Thus within 30 days, Defendant shall file a brief indicating whether he has custody and 

control over the requested documents, and should indicate what if anything he did to conduct 

his search for those documents.

Regarding Request 6 (typed copy of recordings from all interviews by agent M. Dunlop

from O.I.A. prison staff and inmate interviews, most importantly Defendant‟s interview); 

Request 8 (copy of Lt. Morales report from interviews of July 2, 2012 of witnesses concerning 

the investigation of defendant‟s misconduct and any other available reports pertaining to this 

case); Request 9 (all reports documented by staff concerning defendant‟s use of 

force/misconduct); Request 10 (copies of reports regarding allegations made by inmates 

concerning the use of force and misconduct by Defendant); Request 111(copies of disciplinary 

records, pay cut, re assignment for misconduct), Defendant includes the following objection 

number 9 in addition to the boilerplate objections listed above: 

Given that the CDCR is the custodian of records and the Request is vague, 

ambiguous and overly broad, it is impossible and unduly burdensome and 

oppressive for defendant to surmise or speculate what documents may be sought 

or subject to a privilege. To the extent that the records sought are part of 

plaintiff‟s non-privileged CDCR C-File, they are readily available to plaintiff.

(Doc. 41 at 36:26-37:2.)

 

1 Defendant mislabeled this as Request 12 in its response. 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 49 Filed 11/02/15 Page 4 of 7
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

Notably as to these requests, Defendant omits the objection about lacking possession of said 

documents, suggesting that Defendant does in fact have them.

In its opposition to Plaintiff‟s motion to compel, Defendant fails to make any 

substantive argument regarding any of these requests. Defendant merely copies all of its 

boilerplate objections and claims that Plaintiff has failed to address them. As discussed above, 

this is not a proper objection. It is not the Court‟s responsibility to sort out which of the many 

objections has any merit or applies to documents, without even having access to such 

documents.

Defendant‟s argument that it is impossible, burdensome and oppressive for him to 

determine privilege is not the law. If Defendant wishes to withhold a document on the basis of 

privilege, he must provide a privilege log. He may not ignore document requests by stating it is 

possible that a privilege applies. This Court will allow Defendant an opportunity to provide a 

detailed privilege log, specifying the basis for any privilege on a document-by-document basis, 

and make such documents available to the Court for in camera review upon the Court‟s 

request. 

Without any clear argument from Defendant, this Court must determine for itself which 

of Plaintiff‟s requests seek discoverable information. On their face, these requests, to the 

extent they seek information about the incident on May 23, 2011 or about instances of 

excessive force involving the Defendant, appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence. Thus, the Court will order that they be produced. 

Finally, Defendant has failed to provide any objection to Request 12 for “cop[ies] from 

findings from 602 inmate appeals inmates have fil[ed] on defendant for excessive 

force/misconduct.” Accordingly, any objections have been waived. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 30 days from this order, Defendant shall file a brief indicating whether it has 

custody or control regarding the documents sought in Request 1 (incident 

commander review report of May 23, 2011), Request 2 (Regional use of force 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 49 Filed 11/02/15 Page 5 of 7
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

coordinator report CDCR form 3034-A-(9/09), Request 3 (Report of executive 

review committee-use of force/misconduct allegation CDCR form 3036-A (9/09) 

concerning this matter), Request 4 (report of executive committee critique and 

qualitative evaluation/analysis), Request 5 (copy from the report from the 

investigation conducted by internal affairs agent M. Dunlop), Request 7 (copy of the 

video recording by Lt. Ostransa and Sgt. Krby of plaintif‟s interview); and Request 

13 (a picture where the event took place). Defendant shall also indicate what it did 

to search for these documents. 

2. Within 30 days from the date of this order, Defendant shall produce all responsive 

documents to Request 6 (typed copy of recordings from all interviews by agent M. 

Dynlop from O.I.A. prison staff and inmate interviews, most importantly 

Defendant‟s interview); Request 8 (Copy of Lt. Morales report from interviews of 

July 2, 2012 of witnesses concerning the investigation of defendant‟s misconduct 

and any other available reports pertaining to this case); Request 9 (all reports 

documented by staff concerning defendant‟s use of force/misconduct); Request 10 

(copies of reports regarding allegations made by inmates concerning the use of force 

and misconduct by Defendant); Request 11 (copies of disciplinary records, pay cut, 

re assignment for misconduct), and Request 12 (copies from findings from 602 

inmate appeals inmates have fil[ed] on defendant for excessive force/misconduct) to 

the extent they concern the incident of May 23, 2011 described in Plaintiff‟s 

complaint, or any other allegations of excessive force by Defendant from five years 

prior to the incident until the present.

3. If Defendant wishes to assert a privilege for any of the documents listed above, it 

must provide a detailed privilege log asserting the basis of any privilege on a 

document-specific basis. Defendant must produce any partially-privileged 

documents in redacted form. Defendant should be prepared to deliver any withheld 

documents to the Court for in camera review upon the Court‟s request. 

///

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 49 Filed 11/02/15 Page 6 of 7
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

4. Any additional document requests or document subpoeans Plaintiff chooses to serve 

on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) shall be 

considered timely if served within 30 days of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2015 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 49 Filed 11/02/15 Page 7 of 7