Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02556/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02556-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL PAYAN, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2556 GEB JFM P

vs.

THERESA SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to

two requests contained in a request for production of documents served on defendants on June 2,

2005. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to provide him with “all staff

misconduct complaints filed against each separate defendant” by both inmates and civilians in

the past five years. In the alternative, plaintiff seeks in camera review by this court of documents

responsive to the two requests. Defendants objected to the requests on the grounds that the

requests were “vague and ambiguous as to the term ‘misconduct;’ [and] overly broad and

burdensome,” not likely to lead to relevant or admissible evidence, and sought confidential

information. (Ex. A to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, filed July 22, 2005.)

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02556-GEB -JFM Document 40 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 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

After review of the record herein, and good cause appearing, this court finds that,

at a minimum, defendants’ first two objections to each request are well-taken. Given the

overbreadth of plaintiff’s requests, the court makes no findings with respect to the adequacy of

defendants’ relevancy, admissibility, or confidentiality objections. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 22,

2005 motion to compel discovery responses or for in camera review is denied. 

DATED: October 12, 2005.

12

paya2556.mtc

 

Case 2:03-cv-02556-GEB -JFM Document 40 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2