Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843-23/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMEN D. RABB,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESTEVEN FIGUEROA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL, FILED ON JULY 18, 

2024

(ECF No. 69)

Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed July 18, 2024. 

I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding against Defendants Figueroa and Chavez for failure to protect 

under the Eighth Amendment. 

Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the time he filed the instant complaint. (ECF No. 

1.) 

///

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 78 Filed 09/09/24 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on August 28, 2023. (ECF No. 16.) 

On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff’s attorney moved to withdraw as counsel. (ECF No. 22.) 

Defendants did not oppose the motion. (ECF No. 25.) On October 20, 2023, the Court granted 

Plaintiff’s attorney’s motion for leave to withdraw as counsel. (ECF No. 26.)

On October 30, 2023, the Court issued an amended scheduling order. (ECF No. 27.)

On February 16, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds 

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. (ECF No. 32.)

On April 4, 2024, Findings and Recommendations were issued recommending 

Defendants’ exhaustion motion for summary judgment be granted as to Plaintiff’s retaliation 

claim and denied as to Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim. (ECF No. 41.) The Findings and 

Recommendations were adopted in full on May 3, 2024, and Plaintiff’s retaliation claim was 

dismissed from the action, without prejudice. (ECF No. 55.) 

On June 18, 2024, the Court modified the scheduling order and set the deadline for 

completion of all discovery as September 16, 2024, and the deadline for filing dispositive motions 

as November 15, 2024. (ECF No. 65.) 

On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel. Defendants filed an 

opposition on August 6, 2024, and Plaintiff did not file a reply. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for 

compel is deemed submitted for review without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). 

II.

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. 27. 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 

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 78 Filed 09/09/24 Page 2 of 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

3

U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (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. CV08-0472-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 

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 

proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the 

action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ 

resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

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, 

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 78 Filed 09/09/24 Page 3 of 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

4

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 litigant; 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). 

III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to his first set of requests for production of 

documents numbers 1 through 5. (ECF No. 69.) 

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff “fails to provide any substantive discussion 

as to how Defendants’ responses are deficient[,]” and they “appropriately objected and fully 

responded to [Plaintiff’s] requests.” (ECF No. 74.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 requires a party to produce all relevant documents in 

the party's “possession, custody, or control” when responding to a request for production of 

documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). “Rule 34 only requires a party to produce documents that are 

already in existence,” and a district court “cannot compel the production of documents that do not 

exist.” Alexander v. F.B.I., 194 F.R.D. 305, 310 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Medina v. Cnty. of San Diego, 

Civil No. 08cv1252 BAS (RBB), 2014 WL 4793026, at *19 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014); see also

Lamon v. Adams, No. 1:09–cv–00205–LJO–SMS PC, 2015 WL 1879606, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 

22, 2015) (“In requiring the production of documents and other tangible things ‘in the responding 

party's possession, custody, or control,’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1) contemplates 

only the production of existing items since something that does not exist cannot be possessed, 

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 78 Filed 09/09/24 Page 4 of 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

5

held, or controlled.”).

A. Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

On March 17, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendants with one set of requests for production of 

documents. (Declaration of Jennifer Burns (Burns Decl.) ¶ 2.) On July 8, 2024, Defendants 

timely served responses to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents. (Id., Ex. 

A; see also ECF No. 40 (staying discovery on March 27, 2024, until a ruling on Defendants’ thenpending motion for summary judgment).) 

In response to request for production number 3, Defendants stated they would make the 

only video footage of the incident available to Plaintiff for inspection. (Burns Decl. ¶ 3.) 

Defense counsel arranged for Plaintiff to view the video of the incident by contacting the 

litigation coordinator at Plaintiff’s institution. (Id.) The litigation coordinator first scheduled a

time for Plaintiff to view the video on July 25, 2024, in the Board of Parole Hearings’ (BPH)

building, but BPH had a scheduling conflict and could not accommodate the appointment. (Id.)

Accordingly, the litigation coordinator scheduled a second time for Rabb to view the video on

August 2, 2024, but the institution was unable to get Plaintiff to the appointment. (Id.) The

litigation coordinator then re-scheduled a third time for Plaintiff to view the video on August 5, 

2024, but Plaintiff refused to attend the appointment without an escort that the institution could 

not accommodate. (Id.) Counsel is working with the litigation coordinator to set up a fourth

appointment for Rabb to view the video footage and will continue to do so until Plaintiff views 

the video. (Id.)

The Court will address each of Plaintiff’s requests for productions, set one, below. 

1. Request for Production No 1:

Request for Production No. 1:

Any and all documents that refer to or relate to policies, practices, and procedures

in effect in June 2022 for Kern Valley State Prison custodial staff regarding the

unethical mistreatment of inmates by staff, or unethical misconduct by staff. This

request includes but is not limited to all policies, procedures, or practices generated

by the CDC as well as policies, procedures, or practices specific to Kern Valley

State Prison.

///

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 78 Filed 09/09/24 Page 5 of 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

6

Response:

Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as

to the terms “unethical,” “mistreatment,” and “misconduct,” and is overly broad as

to scope and unduly burdensome. The request also potentially seeks confidential

documents, including documents protected by the official information privilege, the

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

Defendants further object to this request to the extent it seeks information not

relevant to this litigation nor proportional to the needs of the case as it does not relate

to Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim and seeks records regarding all unethical

mistreatment or misconduct. Without waiving any objection, Defendants respond

as follows: Title 15, California Code of Regulations and the Department Operations

Manual, both of which are available to Plaintiff in the prison law library, contain

information responsive to this request and that does not implicate safety and security

issues. As a courtesy, Defendants are producing the following documents in their

entirety: Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations (2022 rev.), located at DEFS

0001-0397 and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Adult

Institutions, Programs, and Parole Operations Manual (2022 rev.), located at DEFS

0398-01254. Absent a more tailored request, Defendants are unable to further

respond to this request.

(Burns Decl., Ex. A at 1-2.)

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response shall be denied. As an initial 

matter, Plaintiff fails to explain how Defendants’ response is deficient. (ECF No. 69 at 1-2.) To 

the extent Plaintiff seeks a more specific set of policies, practices, and procedures, Plaintiff’s 

request is overly broad in that it seeks “any and all” policies, practices, and procedures regarding 

unethical mistreatment of inmates by staff, or unethical misconduct by staff. (Burns Decl., Ex. A. 

at 1.) Discovery requests are intrusive or burdensome where they are overbroad and “not 

narrowly tailored temporally, geographically or in their subject matter.” In re Ex Parte 

Application of Qualcomm Inc., 162 F. Supp. 3d 1029, 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Generally, a 

discovery request without any temporal or other reasonable limitation is objectionable on its face 

as overly broad. See, e.g., Ehrlich v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 302 F.R.D. 620, 625 (D. Kan. 

2014); Johnson v. Kraft Foods North America, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 535, 541-542 (D. Kan. 2006). A 

document request or interrogatory is also overly broad or unduly burdensome on its face if it: “(1) 

uses an omnibus term such as ‘relating to’ or ‘concerning,’ and (2) applies to a general category 

or group of documents or a broad range of information.” Moses v. Halstead, 236 F.R.D. 667, 672 

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 78 Filed 09/09/24 Page 6 of 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

7

(D. Kan. 2006). “Despite the overly broad nature of [a discovery request], a party typically has a 

duty to respond to it to the extent the [discovery request] is not objectionable and can be narrowed 

to an appropriate scope.” Id. “This rule does not apply, however, and the Court will not compel 

further response, when inadequate guidance exists to determine the proper scope of the [discovery 

request].” Id. In addition, when a discovery request “is overly broad on its face or when 

relevancy is not readily apparent, the party seeking discovery has the burden to show the 

relevancy of the request.” Johnson, 236 F.R.D. at 542 n.20. 

Despite being overly broad and unduly burdensome, Defendants produced two documents 

containing the policies, practices, and procedures of all California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation institutions—Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and the Department 

Operations Manual. (Burns Decl., Ex. A at 2.) Defendants submit that “[n]oncompliance with 

any of these polices could be construed as unethical or mistreatment of inmates.” (ECF No. 74 at 

4.)1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

2. Request for Production No. 2:

Request for Production No. 2:

Any and all equipment/use log of assigned BWC video footage (body cameras)

signed by defendants for use on June 3, 2022.

Response:

Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as

to the term “equipment/use log,” and seeks information not related to the claim or

defense of any party as it does not relate to Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim.

Without waiving any objection, Defendants respond as follows: Defendants have

conducted a diligent search and made a reasonable inquiry and have determined that

the requested documents do not exist.

(Burns Decl., Ex. A at 2.) 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be denied. Notwithstanding the objections, 

Defendants submit that they conducted a diligent search and made a reasonable inquiry into the 

request and determined there are no responsive documents. The Court cannot compel a party to 

produce documents that do not exist. Defendants stated that after a good faith, reasonable, and 

1

In addition, as explained below, in response to request for production number 4, Defendants identified policies and 

procedures concerning the nondisclosure of an inmate’s case factors to other inmates-an even more tailored response 

to Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim. (Burns Decl., Ex. A at 3.) 

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 78 Filed 09/09/24 Page 7 of 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

8

diligent search, there are no documents responsive to this request. While Plaintiff may believe 

that there are more documents in existence, in the absence of legal or fact-based substantive 

deficiencies, he is required to accept the response provided. Mere distrust and suspicion regarding 

discovery responses do not form a legitimate basis to further challenge responses which are 

facially legally sufficient. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, which has not been 

presented here, Plaintiff is required to accept Defendants’ response that no responsive documents 

exist. See Mootry v. Flores, 2014 WL 3587839, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2014). Moreover, signed discovery 

responses are themselves certifications to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and 

belief formed after a reasonable inquiry, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(B) (quotation marks omitted), as 

are other signed filings presented to the Court, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(c). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

3. Request for Production No. 3:

Request for Production No. 3:

Any and all AVSS-audio, video, surveillance system footage collected by CDCR

staff in relation to and/or as a result of Plaintiff’s allegations.

Response: 

Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as

to the terms “collected,” “relation to,” “as a result of,” and “allegations,” and is

overly broad as to time. Defendants further object to this request to the extent it

seeks information not related to the claim or defense of any party. Finally,

Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it invades the privacy rights of

third parties in that the video footage contains other inmates’ faces. Without waiving

any objection and construing “allegations” as Plaintiff’s June 3, 2022, failure to

protect allegations in this lawsuit, Defendants respond as follows: Defendants will

make a redacted copy of Defendants’ Body Worn Camera footage available to

Plaintiff to view. The faces of third-party inmates will be blurred to protect their

privacy.

(Burns Decl.., Ex. A at 2-3.)

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response shall be denied. Plaintiff again

fails to explain how Defendants’ response is deficient. Indeed, Defendants submit that they are

attempting to make video footage available to Plaintiff for inspection, but they have been unable 

to do so due to scheduling conflicts or Plaintiff’s refusal to attend appointments to view the video. 

(Burns Decl. ¶ 3.) Accordingly, because Defendants will make the video footage available to 

Plaintiff to view, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 78 Filed 09/09/24 Page 8 of 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

9

3. Request for Production No. 4:

Request for Production No. 4:

Any and all documents received, read, or reviewed by each defendant that refer or

relate to training, policies, or procedures in the non-disclosure of an inmate’s case

factors to other inmates.

Response:

Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as

to “refer to,” “relate to,” and “case factors,” is overly broad as to time and unduly

burdensome. Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it is

duplicative of Request No. 1. The request also potentially seeks confidential

documents, including documents protected by the official information privilege, the

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

institution. Without waiving any objections, Defendants respond as follows:

Defendants refer Plaintiff to Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations (2022

rev.), sections 3321 located at DEFS 0181-0182, sections 3370 to 3379 located at

DEFS 0215-0261; and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Adult Institutions, Programs, and Parole Operations Manual (2022 rev.), chapter 3

located at DEFS 0512-0662, chapter 4 located at DEFS 0663-0730, chapter 6 located

at DEFS 0900-0909, and chapter 7 located at DEFS 0910-1064. Absent a more

tailored request, Defendants are unable to further respond to this request.

(Burns Decl., Ex. A at 3.)

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be denied. Plaintiff moves to compel a further 

response on the grounds that “[t]he request is not as complicated as counsel for defendants have 

made it appear.” (ECF No. 69 at 3.) Notwithstanding the objections, Defendants produced 

polices regarding the non-disclosure of an inmate’s case factors to other inmates. (Burns Decl., 

Ex. A at 3.) Furthermore, this request is overly broad because it does not specify a timeframe for 

the documents received, read, or reviewed, by each Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion 

to compel is denied. 

4. Request for Production No. 5:

Request for Production No. 5:

Any and all documents relating to allegations of unethical staff misconduct by either

defendant while employed by CDCR.

Response: 

Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it seeks inadmissible character

evidence, seeks information not related to the claim or defense of any party as it

does not relate to Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim, and is overly broad as to time

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 78 Filed 09/09/24 Page 9 of 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

10

and subject matter. To the extent this request calls for documents contained in

Defendants’ personnel file, Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it

calls for documents protected by the Official Information Privilege, California

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

and 1043. The request is also unduly burdensome as there is no way to search all

allegations (unless the allegation was made in a 602 appeal and processed as a staff

complaint) made by an inmate against a particular staff member other than by

searching 602 appeals filed by every single inmate. The request for allegations made

by other inmates also seeks documents that may contain confidential and private

information about other inmates’ medical conditions, custody classifications, and

other sensitive information, the disclosure of which would create a hazard to the

safety and security of the institution and violates the inmates’ right to privacy.

Plaintiff’s request for appeals/staff complaints made after June 3, 2022, seeks

irrelevant information concerning alleged incidents which occurred after the subject

incidents involving Plaintiff.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendants

produce the non-confidential portion of grievance log no. 265387, submitted by

Plaintiff against Defendants, located at DEFS 1255- DEFS 1256. See Privilege Log.

Based on the above objections, Defendant will not respond further to this request.

(Burns Decl., Ex. A at 4-5.)

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part. Plaintiff argues that allegations of 

staff misconduct are relevant because they show whether Defendants had a pattern of misconduct. 

(ECF No. 69 at 3.) 

The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff’s request is too broad as this case 

proceeds only on a failure to protect claim against Defendants Figueroa and Chavez. See, e.g., 

Brook v. Carey, 352 Fed. Appx. 184, 185-86 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming district court denial of 

motion to compel “[a]ny and all grievances, complaints, or other documents received by the 

defendants...concerning mistreatment of inmates”). Plaintiff’s request includes any and all 

documents relating to allegations of unethical staff misconduct by either defendant while 

employed by CDCR. Furthermore, the request is not limited in time and inmate 602 appeals or 

staff complaints that are too removed in time may be of limited relevance. Nonetheless, the Court 

finds that the ordering of a more tailored discovery is the right approach in this case. See, e.g., 

Taylor v. O’Hanneson, No. 11-CV-00538-LJO, 2014 WL 2696585, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 

2014) (permit discovery into past complaints by narrowing the complaints to the same 

defendants, to similar claims as at issue in the case, and within a relevant time period); see also

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 78 Filed 09/09/24 Page 10 of 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

11

Ramirez v. County of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407, 412 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Though this evidence 

may not be used to show Defendants’ character, discovery is not limited to admissible evidence 

and such evidence may be used for other permissible purposes or may lead to other admissible 

evidence.2 Construing Plaintiff’s complaint liberally, as the Court must, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff is entitled to documentation as to whether either Defendant has exhibited similar 

behavior in the past. Thus, the Court grants in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to request for 

production number 5. Defendants Figueroa and Chavez shall provide a complete response to this 

request involving inmate 602 appeals and/or staff complaints made directly against them, limited 

to similar accusations of failure to protect, and time-limited to a period of five years prior to the 

incident at issue in June 3, 2022. If Defendants contend that their response will necessarily 

require disclosure of confidential information of other inmates, guards, or other prison personnel, 

they may redact information as needed to protect the privacy of others.

IV.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied as to requests for productions, numbers 1 

through 4; and

///

///

///

///

///

///

2

“Complaints against officers ... may show, among other things, the character or proclivity of such officers toward 

violent behavior or possible bias.” See Taylor v. Los Angeles Police Department, No. EDCV99-0383-RT(RCX), 

1999 WL 33101661, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 1999). “Further, complaints and/or disciplinary action ‘may help establish a 

pattern or practice ... where professional conduct is called into question. Further, such documents would bear upon ... 

[a defendant's] notice of ... previous alleged misconduct.’ ” Taylor v. O’Hanneson, 2014 WL 2696585, at *5 (quoting 

Ramirez v. County of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407, 412 (C.D. Cal. 2005)). “Moreover, admissibility of character 

evidence is a proper objection to be raised at trial, but not necessarily in the discovery phase.” Id. “However, even at 

trial, evidence that would be inadmissible to prove one’s character, may be admissible for other purposes.” Id.

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 78 Filed 09/09/24 Page 11 of 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

12

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part as to request for production, number 

5. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants 

shall provide a complete response to this request involving inmate 602 appeals 

and/or staff complaints made directly against them, limited to similar accusations 

of failure to protect, and time-limited to a period of five years prior to the incident 

at issue in June 3, 2022, subject to any redactions as set forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 78 Filed 09/09/24 Page 12 of 12