Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01686/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01686-10/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

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

SYNRICO RODGERS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

C.C. MARTIN, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

DISCOVERY 

(ECF No. 40)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds against Defendants Martin 

and Blattel on claims of retaliation and deliberate indifference relating to a November 29, 

2010 incident. The deadline for completing discovery expired May 30, 2014. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s June 2, 2014 motion to compel responses to his 

requests for production, set two, items number 1-4 and to his unenumerated request for a 

copy of a November 22, 2013 deposition transcript. Plaintiff also seeks his motion costs. 

Defendants filed opposition. Plaintiff has not replied to the opposition, and the time 

for doing so has expired. Local Rule 230(l).

I. LEGAL STANDARDS – DISCOVERY MOTIONS

The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith. Asea, Inc. 

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/29/14 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

v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981). Parties may obtain 

discovery regarding any non-privileged 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). Relevant information need 

not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

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. E.g., 

Grabek v. Dickinson, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan.13, 2012). 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. Id.

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).

Courts in the Eastern District of California have required, “at a minimum, [that] the 

moving party plaintiff has the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery requests are 

the subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of the defendant's responses are disputed, 

(3) why he believes the defendant's responses are deficient, (4) why the defendant's 

objections are not justified, and (5) why the information he seeks through discovery is 

relevant to the prosecution of this action.” Walker v. Karelas, 2009 WL 3075575, at *1 (E.D. 

Cal. Sep. 21, 2009). 

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/29/14 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

The court must limit discovery if the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs its 

likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). “In each instance [of discovery], the

determination whether . . . information is discoverable because it is relevant to the claims or 

defenses depends on the circumstances of the pending action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory 

Committee's note (2000 Amendment) (Gap Report) (Subdivision (b)(1).

All grounds for objection must be stated “with specificity.” See Mancia v. Mayflower 

Textile Services Co., 253 F.R.D. 354, 356 (D.Md. 2008) (boiler-plate objections waived any 

legitimate objections responding party may have had); Chubb Integrated Sys., Ltd. v. 

National Bank of Wash., 103 F.R.D. 52, 58 (D.D.C. 1984) (the objecting party must state 

reasons for any objection, “irrelevant” did not fulfill party's burden to explain its objections); 

Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discovery Card Services, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 295, 310 (D. Kan. 1996)

(objection on grounds of vagueness and ambiguity overruled if reason and common sense 

to attribute ordinary definitions to terms and phrases provided needed clarity).

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

A. Legal Requirements – Request for Production

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 items in the responding party's possession, custody or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

34(a)(1). “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 obtain the property 

on demand.” Allen v. Woodford, 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 Evans v. Tilton, 2010 WL 

1136216, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010).

B. Arguments

Plaintiff argues that he has not yet received documents relating to use of force or a

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/29/14 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

copy of a November 22, 2013 deposition transcript requested in his January 2014 request 

for production, set two. He claims Defendants’ “refusal to answer/produce the documents 

had no substantial justification.” (See ECF No. 40, at 2:2-4.) He seeks an order compelling 

discovery and costs of this motion. 

Defendants assert they responded to the production request in February 2014, 

objecting to each request and that Plaintiff has not addressed or responded to their 

objections. They also claim that documents relating to use of force are not relevant to the 

retaliation and medical indifference claims in issue, are confidential security documents and 

constitute improper character evidence. They further argue that Plaintiff has equal access 

to any non-confidential documents within the scope of his request and that Plaintiff is not 

entitled to use discovery to obtain a free copy of a deposition transcript. 

C. Analysis

Defendants do not object to, or claim prejudice from, Plaintiff having filed the instant 

motion three days after the discovery deadline.1 Accordingly, and considering Plaintiff’s pro 

se prisoner status, the Court will overlook the untimeliness of the motion and address its

merits. See e.g., Williams v. Adams, 2009 WL 1220311, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2009) (the 

court may elect to exercise its discretion to reach the merits of discovery dispute, the 

moving party's initial burden notwithstanding, where the response is deficient).

Having considered the motion and Defendants’ opposition and the relevant 

discovery requests and responses, the Court rules as follows:

Production Request No. 1: 

Any and all incident packages, (as Defined by Corcoran State Prison

use of force Policy signed by Defendants and Provided to Plaintiff.)

This document includes but is not limited to, crime/incident report,

Review Notices, Incident Commander Reviews, Management

 

1 Plaintiff filed the motion on June 2, 2014. (ECF No. 40.) The deadline to bring a motion to compel was May 

30, 2014. (ECF No. 15, at ¶ 8.) 

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/29/14 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

Reports of use of force, captain’s Review of use of force

crime/Incident Report Critiques, use of force critiques, and associate

wardens Reviews of use of force crime/Incident Report Critiques.

Response: 

Objection. The request does not describe with reasonable

particularity the item or category of items to be produced. The

request is overbroad because it is unlimited in time and scope. The

request is irrelevant and is not calculated to lead to admissible

evidence because Plaintiff does not have an excessive use of force

claim in this action under the Court’s November 12, 2013 Screening

Order. (ECF No. 7.) A report of the November 29, 2011 [sic] incident is

in Plaintiff’s Central File (C-file). All inmates have access to their

C-files. When prison records are equally available to the plaintiff,

the plaintiff must attempt to obtain them through the proper prison

channels. Glass v. Diaz, 1:04-CV-5953-AWI-DLB-P, 2007 WL

2022034, at * 4 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2007).

Ruling:

This matter proceeds on claims that Defendants (1) retaliated by denying Plaintiff a 

meal and pepper spray decontamination, and (2) were indifferent to Plaintiff’s need for 

pepper spray decontamination.

As worded, the request at issue requests all records relating to any use of force by 

anyone against anyone at the prison at any time in its existence. As such, it is overbroad, 

burdensome and calls for information that is not relevant to the case nor likely to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. However, the November 29, 2010 use of force incident 

package referred to in Plaintiff’s request likely includes information relevant to the alleged 

failure to decontaminate. While that report may be available in Plaintiff’s central file, it does 

not likely include all “reviews” referred to in Plaintiff’s request. Accordingly, the Court 

overrules Defendants’ objections to the latter and will order Defendants to produce all 

reports and writings, including ‘reviews”, relating to the November 29, 2010 incident within 

20 days of the date of this Order.

Production Request No. 2:

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/29/14 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

Any and all records of training that has been provided to each

Defendant on use of force. The time frame for this discovery request

is the time each Defendant became employed by the CDCR to the

present.

Response: 

Objection. The request is irrelevant and is not calculated to lead to

admissible evidence because Plaintiff does not have an excessive use

of force claim in this action under the Court’s November 12, 2013

Screening Order. (ECF No. 7.) The request does not describe with

reasonable particularity the item or category of items to be produced.

The request is overbroad because: 1) Defendant Blattel did not use

force against Plaintiff; and 2) Plaintiff requests records of training

after the relevant incident. Employee training records, prison policy

and training manuals are confidential due to the safety and security

concerns of the institution. The probative value of these documents

is greatly outweighed by security considerations. To the extent the

requests seek non-confidential documents such as California Code of

Regulations, Title 15 or the Departmental Operations Manual, these

documents are available to Plaintiff in the prison law library.

Plaintiff may not use discovery to obtain free copies of documents

equally available to him. Jones v. Lundy, 1:03-cv-05980-AWI-LJO

PC, 2007 WL 214580, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2007).

Ruling:

Use of force training may include training on use of pepper spray and prisoner 

decontamination after its use and, as such, may be relevant to the claims in issue here. 

Thus, to extent Defendants received such training after their hire date and within the five 

years immediately preceding the date of the incident, November 29, 2010, Defendants’ 

objections are overruled and, subject to the terms of the following paragraphs, responsive 

documents shall be produced within 20 days of the date of this Order.

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 (1984) (privacy rights or 

interests implicit in broad purpose and language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe 

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/29/14 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

Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir.

2005) (discussing assertion of privilege); 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).

Additionally, documents that are a part of the personnel records of officers defending 

civil rights actions, while containing sensitive information, are within the scope of discovery. 

Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 614-15 (N.D. Cal. 1995); Hampton v. City of San 

Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227, 230–31 (S.D. Cal. 1993); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 296 

(C.D. Cal. 1992). In civil rights cases brought under federal statutes, questions of privilege 

are resolved by federal law. Kerr v. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 

511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd on procedural grounds, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). “State 

privilege doctrine, whether derived from statutes or court decisions, is not binding on 

federal courts in these kinds of cases.” Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 655 (N.D.

Cal. 1987).

Defendants’ objection on grounds of institutional safety and security and state law 

confidentiality is not supported by sufficient facts to enable the Court to balance the 

asserted competing interests and resolve the objection, and so is overruled. See Soto, 162 

F.R.D. at 613 (Defendants' conclusory objection of confidentiality is insufficient to shield 

them from producing discoverable documents).

However, to the extent Defendants in good faith believe and represent to the Court 

that documents within the request fall within the need for such protections, they may, within 

the 20 days herein provided for production, present them to the Court for its in camera 

review and determination of what, if any of the requested documents, will actually be 

produced.

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/29/14 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

Defendants’ objection that Title 15 regulations and state prison operational manual 

are available in the prison law library is irrelevant to the issues raised by this request.

Production Request No. 3:

Any and all documents received, read, or reviewed by each

Defendant that refer or relate to Training, Policies, or Procedures on

use of Force.

Response: 

Objection. The request is irrelevant and is not calculated to lead to

admissible evidence because Plaintiff does not have an excessive use

of force claim in this action under the Court’s November 12, 2013

Screening Order. (ECF No. 7.) The request does not describe with

reasonable particularity the item or category of items to be produced.

The request is overbroad because: 1) Defendant Blattel did not use

force against Plaintiff; and 2) Plaintiff requests training documents

after the relevant incident. Employee training records, prison policy

and training manuals are confidential due to the safety and security

concerns of the institution. The probative value of these documents

is greatly outweighed by security considerations. To the extent the

requests seek non-confidential documents such as California Code of

Regulations, Title 15 or the Departmental Operations Manual, these

documents are available to Plaintiff in the prison law library.

Plaintiff may not use discovery to obtain free copies of documents

equally available to him. Jones v. Lundy, 1:03-cv-05980-AWI-LJO

PC, 2007 WL 214580, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2007).

Ruling:

The request does not describe with any reasonable degree of particularity the 

specific documents sought, and, as such, is fatally overbroad. It appears to the Court that 

discoverable documents falling within the scope of this request are likely to be included in 

response to the Court’s Order on production No. 2, above.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to item number 3 shall be denied. 

Production Request No. 4:

Any and all Formal and Informal Written Complaints. (Including but

not Limited to 602 Forms.) Against any Defendant, Alleging use of

force that occurred. Prior to November 29th, 2010. (Including But not

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/29/14 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

Limited, All Written Responses, Appeals, Reports, Investigations, and

or Correspondence Regarding the Complaint.)

Response: 

Objection. The request is irrelevant and is not calculated to lead to

admissible evidence because Plaintiff does not have an excessive use of

force claim in this action under the Court’s November 12, 2013 Screening Order. 

(ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff’s request appears designed to uncover character evidence, 

which is inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1) (evidence of a person's character or 

character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person 

acted in accordance with the character or trait). See Abraham v. Costello, 717

F.Supp.2d 391, 397 (D. Del. 2010); Ahdom v. Lopez, No. 1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM 

(PC), 2013 WL 5406868, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013) (plaintiff’s request for “all 

documents [that] refer to, reflect, mention, discuss or evidence complaints, formal or 

informal, against [defendants]” was improper). Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-

AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). (sustaining the 

defendants’ objections to producing “any and all grievances received by the 

Department [relating to the defendant] . . .” even where a limited time period and 

subject matter was specified). The requests call for information expressly exempted 

from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or information protected by

California Penal Code § 832.7, California Evidence Code § 1040, federal common 

law privilege, the federal official information privilege, and the federal privacy act. 

The requests call for documents protected by the official information and deliberate 

process privileges, California Government Code section 6254, and California 

Evidence Code sections 1040, 1041, 1043, and 1157 et seq. The request does not 

describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items to be produced. 

The request is overbroad because Plaintiff seeks accusations of wrongdoing that are 

unrelated to the events alleged in the complaint. The request is also overbroad 

because Plaintiff seeks documents in which the allegations of improper conduct 

were not adjudicated or substantiated. Unsubstantiated claims are immaterial and 

have no evidentiary value. Inmate grievances are indexed and retained under the 

inmate’s name, not the prison staff involved. It is impossible to search for inmate 

grievances filed against a specific prison employee. Thus, the request is unduly

burdensome. Abraham, 717 F.Supp. 2d at 397.

Ruling: 

Use of force complaints may relate to the use of pepper spray and prisoner 

decontamination after its use and, as such, may be relevant to the claims in issue here. 

Thus, to the extent such complaints were made against Defendants after their hire date and 

within the five years immediately preceding the date of the incident, November 29, 2010, 

they shall be produced. Defendants’ relevancy, lack of reasonable particularity and 

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/29/14 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

overbreadth objections are overruled. 

Defendants’ objection that Plaintiff may seek improper character evidence is 

speculative and overruled. Defendants have not demonstrated documents sought are not 

admissible or capable of leading to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Cv. P. 

26(b)(1). The character evidence objection can be addressed if and when Plaintiff proposes 

to put the documents into evidence.

Defendants’ objection that they would be unduly burdened searching for responsive

documents is not factually supported. 

Defendants’ objections on grounds of institutional safety and security and 

confidentiality are not supported by sufficient facts to enable the Court to balance the 

asserted competing interests and resolve the objections, and so are overruled. See Soto, 

162 F.R.D. at 613 (Defendants' conclusory objection of confidentiality is insufficient to 

shield them from producing discoverable documents). To the extent Defendants in good 

faith believe and represent to the Court that documents within the request fall within the 

need for such protections, they may, within the 20 days herein provided for production, 

present them to the Court for its in camera review and determination of what, if any of the 

requested documents, will actually be produced.

For the reasons stated, all complaints made against Defendants after their hire date 

and within the five years immediately preceding the date of the incident, November 29, 

2010, shall be produced or presented for in camera review within 20 days of the date of this 

Order.

Unenumerated Production Request – Deposition Transcript:

Pursuant to Rule 26 and Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Plaintiff Requests that the Defendants Produce the

Following Documents to Plaintiff at the Kern Valley State Prison at,

Delano, California or, at such Place as all Parties Shall Hereafter

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/29/14 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

Agree. Please note that the Term “Document” is Defined Broadly in

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(A)(1) and Includes, Regulations,

SOPs, Memoranda, Correspondence, and E-Mails. The Document(s)

that the Plaintiff Request are the Transcripts From the Deposition

Given on, November 22nd, 2013, at Kern Valley State Prison.

Response:

Objection. The Federal Rules do not require the government to

provide a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis with a copy of his

deposition transcript. Glass v. Fields, No. 1:09–cv–00098–AWI–

BAM PC, 2012 WL 1898899, * 2 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2012);

Hallford v. California Dep't of Corrections, CIV S-05-0573-FCD–

DAD–P, 2010 WL 921166, *1 (E.D. Cal. March 12, 2010); Allen v.

Hernandez, No. 1:05–cv–00145–AWI–SMS–PC; 2008 WL 4078772,

*1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2008). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30

provides that the deposition transcript is available to a party upon

payment of reasonable charges to the deposition officer. Plaintiff is

able to obtain a copy of his deposition transcript by contacting the

deposition officer and paying the required fee. Plaintiff may not use

discovery to obtain free copies of documents equally available to

him. Jones v. Lundy, 1:03-cv-05980-AWI-LJO PC, 2007 WL

214580, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2007)

Ruling:

Plaintiff provides no legal authority upon which the court should order Defendants to 

produce a copy of the deposition to him. Defendants’ objection that the deposition transcript 

is equally available to Plaintiff, albeit at cost, is sustained. 

Plaintiff’s motion for further response regarding production of the November 22, 

2013 deposition transcript shall be denied. 

Plaintiff’s Request for Costs of Motion

Plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 requiring 

Defendants to pay costs incurred on this motion on grounds “Defendants’ refusal to 

answer/produce the documents had no substantial justification.” (ECF No. 40, at 2:1-4.)

Rule 37(a)(5) provides, in pertinent part: “If the motion [to compel] is granted . . . the 

court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose 

conduct necessitated the motion . . . to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in 

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/29/14 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

making the motion, including attorney's fees” unless “other circumstances make an award 

of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii).

In this case, considering all of the circumstances, including the nature of the 

requests, Defendants’ objections, and the partial relief granted, the Court will not order the 

imposition of monetary or other sanctions at this time. See e.g., Nalco Chemical Co., v. 

Hydro Technologies, Inc., 148 F.R.D. 608, 617 (E.D. Wis., 1993) (parties appropriately bear 

own costs where motion to compel was only partially successful). 

Plaintiff motion for costs shall be denied. 

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to request for production, set 

two, items number 1, 2 and 4 (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED as provided herein, 

Defendants shall provide the requested documents or present them for in 

camera review with twenty days of the date of this Order, 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to request for production, set 

two, item number 3 (ECF No. 40) is DENIED without prejudice, 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of the November 22, 2013 deposition 

transcript (ECF No. 40) is DENIED, and 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for costs incurred in bringing this instant motion to compel 

(ECF No. 40) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/29/14 Page 12 of 12