Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00675/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00675-39/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT FUENTES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0675 FCD GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel filed June 26, 2007. 

When filing the motion to compel, plaintiff inadvertently failed to include his memorandum of

points and authorities. However, defendants attached a copy of this document to their opposition

filed July 18, 2007.

At issue are responses by defendants Coleman and Joseph to plaintiff’s first set of

interrogatories. In particular, plaintiff objects to the following responses by defendant Joseph: 1,

4, 10, 13, 14, 16, 21, 22 and 23. Plaintiff objects to the following responses by defendant

Coleman: 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 24 and 25. 

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 206 Filed 09/06/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendants objected to several of the at-issue interrogatories on grounds that the

information sought was confidential. Defendant Joseph did not respond to interrogatories nos. 1,

10, 13, 14, 16, 22 and 23, in part, because the information sought was confidential. Defendant

Coleman did not respond to interrogatories nos. 4, 6, 8, 9, 18, 19, 24 and 25, in part, because the

information sought was confidential.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that when a party withholds

information on grounds of privilege, that party must describe the information with sufficient

particularity to allow the requesting party to assess the applicability of the privilege. In re

Subpoena Duces Tecum, 439 F.3d 740, 750 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (to meet burden of establishing the

information warrants withholding, defendant must present evidence “sufficient...to establish the

privilege...with reasonable certainty.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). The requisite detail for a

privilege log consists of a description of responsive material withheld, the identity and position

of its author, the date it was written, the identity and position of all addressees and recipients, the

material’s present location, and specific reasons for its being withheld, including the privilege

invoked and grounds thereof. United States v. Construction Products Research, Inc., 73 F.3d

464, 473 (2d Cir. 1996).

Defendants did not provide a privilege log in support of their assertion of the

“confidentiality” privilege. Rather, defendants made general assertions that the information

sought was confidential, without identifying the specific information. 

The court has determined that privilege logs are required for the for the following

at-issue interrogatories: Joseph: 10, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23; and defendant Coleman: 4, 6, 8, 9.

For the following reasons, the court finds that defendants are not required to

provide privilege logs as to the other interrogatories they raised the “confidentiality” privilege as

to. 

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 206 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Interrogatory no. 1 addressed to defendant Joseph asked him to identify the

persons who assisted him in the preparation of the responses to the interrogatories. Defendant

raised several objections to this interrogatory including that the information sought was

confidential. Without waiving objection, defendant responded that defense counsel assisted in

preparation of the responses. Because defendant Joseph adequately answered this interrogatory,

he is not required to a provide privilege log in support of this response.

Interrogatory no. 18 addressed to defendant Coleman asked if he was named as a

defendant in any cause of action arising out of CSP-SAC. Interrogatory no. 19 asked defendant

Coleman to identify the case numbers, etc. of all cases in which he was named as a defendant

arising out of CSP-SAC. Defendant objected, in part, that these interrogatories sought

information that was not relevant to this lawsuit. This objection has merit as not every lawsuit

regarding CSP-SAC in which defendant Coleman was named as a defendant is relevant to this

action. 

Interrogatory no. 24 asked defendant Coleman to identify the persons who helped

him to answer his interrogatories. Defendant raised several objections to this interrogatory

including that the information sought was confidential. Without waiving objection, defendant

responded that defense counsel assisted in preparation of the responses. Because defendant

Coleman adequately answered this interrogatory, he is not required to provide a privilege log in

support of this response.

Interrogatory no. 25 asked defendant Coleman to identify each person who made

statements to him or provided affidavits to him regarding the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint. 

Defendant objected that the interrogatory was vague, ambiguous, overbroad and sought

confidential information. The objections that this interrogatory is vague and overbroad have

merit. For that reason, defendant is not required to provide a privilege log in support of this

response.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 206 Filed 09/06/07 Page 3 of 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of this

order, defendants shall serve plaintiff with a privilege log regarding the interrogatories listed

above; plaintiff may file a supplemental motion to compel within twenty days thereafter. 

DATED: 9/6/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

fuen675.com(3)

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 206 Filed 09/06/07 Page 4 of 4