Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01179/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01179-12/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

DANIEL MASTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. KILLEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01179-DAD-SAB-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION 

TO COMPEL AND FOR IN CAMERA 

REVIEW

(ECF NO. 69)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS‟ 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 

DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND TO 

EXTEND THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION 

FILING DEADLINE

(ECF NO. 72) 

Dispositive Motion Deadline:

March 16, 2016

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff‟s 

motion to compel and for an in camera review (ECF No. 69) and Defendants‟ motion to compel 

further discovery responses from Plaintiff. (ECF No. 72.) Defendants have opposed Plaintiff‟s 

motion to compel and for in camera review (ECF No. 73.) Plaintiff has opposed the motion to 

compel. (ECF No. 75.) 

This action proceeds on the November 22, 2013, third amended complaint. (ECF No. 28.) 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 17
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

The events at issue in this lawsuit arise from events occurring between July 6, 2010 and May 4, 

2012 at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran (SATF). The gravamen of 

Plaintiff‟s complaint is that all of the named defendants participated in a conspiracy to retaliate 

against him for filing inmate grievances and court cases, in violation of the First Amendment. 

There are also allegations regarding an escort to the law library on December 17, 2011, and a 

threat by another inmate (Defendant Killen‟s inmate clerk) on December 30, 2011. On June 30, 

2014, an order was entered finding that the Third Amended Complaint stated a claim against 

Defendants Killen, Rowell, Hall, Fisher, Rodriguez, Santoro, and Tolson for retaliation, and 

against Defendants Killen, Rowell, Hall, Rodriguez, Santoro and Tolson for conspiracy to 

retaliate against Plaintiff. The remaining claims and Defendants were dismissed.

Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to his Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 

4, 5, 8, 15.1 Defendants also seek an order directing Plaintiff to respond to all of Defendant 

Killen‟s interrogatories. Defendants‟ motion is supported by the declaration of counsel. 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel and for In Camera Review (ECF No. 69)

A. Request No. 1

Plaintiff seeks the production of “all documents that contain, mention, construe, or refer 

to any incident that occurred in the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, State Prison, 

hereafter CSATF-SP, Delta Facility Library on or about December 30, 2011.” Defendants 

objected on the grounds of vagueness, confidentiality pursuant to California Code of Regulations 

Title 15, Sections 3321 and 3450. Defendants further asserted the official information privilege 

under California Evidence Code section 1040 et. seq. Along with their objections, Defendants 

submitted to Plaintiff a privilege log and supporting declaration. Finally, Defendants responded 

that to the extent Plaintiff is seeking information contained in his own central file records, such 

documents are equally available to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is legally entitled to review them. 

Without waiving objections, Defendant responded by producing non-confidential documents 

from Plaintiff‟s central file referencing an incident involving Plaintiff that occurred in the SATF 

 

1

Plaintiff‟s Requests for Production of Documents were directed at all seven Defendants. 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 17
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

Delta Library on December 30, 2011. 

Relevant documents may be withheld based on the “official information privilege.” The 

official information privilege is a qualified privilege, which balances the privilege against the 

probative value of the information sought. Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 655 (N.D. 

Cal. 1987). Once invoked, the opposing party must show that the balance of interests weighs in 

his favor, before those privileged documents must be produced. (Id.) In support of their 

assertion of the privilege, Defendants submit the declaration of Correctional Counselor Barba, 

the Litigation Coordinator at SATF. Counselor Barba declares that the documents reflecting the 

confidential, inmate interview and investigation of an incident on December 30, 2011, are kept 

confidential by the CDCR, and that he has personally reviewed them. (Barba Decl. ¶ 3-4.) 

Counselor Barba identifies and describes the significant governmental and privacy interests that 

would be threatened by a disclosure of confidential interview and investigation documents to 

Plaintiff, as well as how the disclosure of these documents, even subject to a protective order, 

would still create a substantial risk of harm to those governmental interests. ( Id. at ¶¶ 5-7.) 

Counselor Barba‟s declaration also identifies the potential harm that would ensue were the Court 

to order production of the documents Plaintiff seeks. (Id. at ¶ 7.) 

Defendants argue that the release of these documents to Plaintiff, a California prisoner, 

would reveal some of the techniques and methods by which CDCR interviews and investigates 

inmates regarding confidential enemy allegations, and some of the types of corrective measures 

that might be taken as a result of these investigations. Prison inmates with this information 

would have the tools to sabotage staff attempts to deal with disruptive inmate conduct and to 

undermine investigations into these incidents. Inmates could use this information to make more 

effective but false accusations against other inmates, and to manipulate staff regarding discipline

and/or housing of other inmates. The disclosure would substantially undermine staff‟s ability to 

function and control inmate interactions effectively and confidentially and maintain inmate‟s 

anonymity. The release of the sensitive documents would also likely impair staff morale, and 

would also impair well-grounded inmate complaints against staff or other inmates, and the 

investigations into such complaints. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-7.) 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 3 of 17
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

Counselor Barba‟s declaration notes each of the relevant considerations set forth in Kelly, 

114 F.R.D. at 670. Against these considerations, the Court weighs the minimal probative value 

the documents would offer Plaintiff in attempting to prove his retaliation claims against the 

Defendants. Plaintiff has already stated in his complaint that he has spoken to the inmate who 

claimed enemy concerns against Plaintiff and also to the Defendants themselves regarding his 

retaliation allegations. (Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 28, at ¶¶ 31, 35- 36.) Defendants 

correctly argue that Plaintiff‟s speculation regarding what may be contained in these three pages 

of documents goes far afield of the investigation and conclusion. After an investigation, it was 

determined that there were valid enemy concerns between Plaintiff and this other inmate, and 

Plaintiff has been provided with this documentation. 

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel fails to show how or why Defendant‟s objections are 

insufficient or inadequate and offers no argument that overcomes Defendants‟ assertion of 

privilege. Defendants properly objected to Plaintiff‟s request, produced responsive documents, 

and properly withheld three pages of privileged documents. The Court finds that Defendants 

responded to Plaintiff‟s request and properly asserted privilege. Plaintiff‟s motion to compel 

additional documents should be denied as to Request No. 1.

B. Request No. 4

Plaintiff seeks “a copy of any notes, loose pages, records, entries kept by Defendant 

Killen while assigned to the CSATF-SP Delta [sic] Facility Library that contain, mention, 

construe, or refer to Plaintiff, including but not limited to correspondence, messages to any other 

named defendant in this instant action.” Defendants objected on the ground that the request is 

overbroad and unduly burdensome with regard to scope of time. Defendants also objected “to 

the extent” that the request called for information that inmates are not permitted to possess und 

California Code of Regulations, title 15, sections 3450(d) and 3321. Without waiving the 

objections, Defendants produced all documents in their possession, custody and control 

responsive to the request. 

Plaintiff makes no argument that overcomes Defendants‟ assertion of privilege. 

Defendants asserted privilege, and served Plaintiff with the privilege log. Analyzing the Kelly

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 4 of 17
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

factors above, the Court finds the assertion of privilege to be supported by declaration. Plaintiff 

makes no argument that justifies an order directing the production of privileged documents. 

Defendants have produced all responsive, non-privileged documents in their possession. 

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel should be denied as to Request No. 4.

C. Request Nos. 5 and 8

Plaintiff‟s Requests 5 and 8, respectively, seek “a copy of any and all „Appeal Inquiries‟ 

for any CDCR-602 Inmate/Parolee Appeal Forms that were submitted/filed by Plaintiff against 

any listed defendant, that are not available to Plaintiff due to being labeled „Confidential,‟ 

including but not limited to Inmate/Parolee Appeals labeled as „Staff Complaints‟ for the period 

relevant to this action.” Plaintiff also seeks “a copy of the total amount of „Staff Complaints‟ 

filed against each defendant separately, for the period of September 2004 through March 2012.” 

Essentially, Plaintiff is seeking information that Defendants asserted was confidential. 

Along with their response asserting the privilege, Defendants served Plaintiff with a privilege log 

and supporting declaration. Defendants also objected on the ground that the requests were 

overbroad as to scope because the timeframe is not relevant to this action. 

Plaintiff fails to make any argument regarding overbreadth. Plaintiff‟s argument focuses 

on the Defendants‟ assertion of privilege. Regarding Request No. 5, Plaintiff argues that 

Defendants are trying to manipulate or take advantage of Plaintiff because he is a pro se prisoner 

and is unrepresented by counsel. Regardless of whether Plaintiff is represented, he is entitled to 

non-privileged matter that is relevant to his claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff also 

argues that he is entitled to this information because he has received this type of information in 

another lawsuit. That Plaintiff may have received such information in another lawsuit does not 

entitle Plaintiff to privileged information in this lawsuit. Analyzing the Kelly factors above, the 

Court finds the assertion of privilege to be supported by declaration. Plaintiff makes no 

argument that justifies an order directing the production of privileged documents. Plaintiff‟s 

motion to compel should be denied as to Request Nos. 5 and 8.

D. Request No. 15

Defendants note that, pursuant to the amended scheduling order entered on July 16, 2015, 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 5 of 17
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

(ECF No. 55), all discovery was to be completed by October 15, 2015. Responses to discovery 

served under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 31, 33, 34 and 36 are required within forty-five 

days of service. Plaintiff served his request after the August 28, 2015 deadline. Plaintiff filed a 

motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 66), which was denied (ECF No. 68.) 

Plaintiff‟s Exhibit 6 indicates that he served request on September 17, 2015. Specifically, the 

Court denied Plaintiff‟s request to extend the discovery deadline. Plainti8ff‟s Request No. 15 is 

untimely. Plaintiff‟s motion to compel a response to Request No. 15 should be denied. 

E. Request for In Camera Review

Plaintiff‟s motion compel production of confidential information was denied for the 

reasons set forth above. Regarding Plaintiff‟s request for an in camera review and a protective 

order, in camera review, which are both burdensome and intrusive, are not conducted as a matter 

of routine, and they are not available to a litigant merely seeking some reassurance regarding an 

opposing party‟s discovery response. See U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 569-575 (1989); In re 

Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff makes no argument that 

justifies a protective order or the disclosure of confidential information. Plaintiff‟s motion for in 

camera review/and or a protective order should be denied.

II. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (ECF No. 72)

Defendants seek to compel further responses to Defendant Hampson‟s First Set 

Interrogatories 1-24 (excluding 19) and Request for Production of Documents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 19.

A. Interrogatories 1-24 (Excluding Interrogatory 19)

1. Interrogatory 1

Interrogatory 1: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendant Fisher violated 

your Constitutional rights as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff objected on 

the ground that the request was overbroad as to scope and time and that it was unduly 

burdensome. Without waiving these objections, Plaintiff “stands by the verified Third Amended 

Complaint and the stated allegations within.” 

Plaintiff‟s objection that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope is overruled. 

By the terms of the interrogatory, the time and scope is limited to the allegations in the Third 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 6 of 17
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

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff offers no explanation of how responding to the interrogatory is 

unduly burdensome. Plaintiff‟s reference to the allegations of the Third Amended Complaint is 

inappropriate. Plaintiff is required to provide an answer to the interrogatory that is complete in 

itself and should not refer to pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other 

interrogatories. See Union Pac. R. Co., 229 F.R.D. 240, 243 (D.N.M. 2005); Davidson v. Goord, 

215 F.R.D. 73, 77 (W.D.N.Y. 2003); Mulero-Abreu v. P.R. Police Dept, 675 F3d 88, 93 (1st Cir. 

2012). Defendants‟ motion should be granted as to this interrogatory. Plaintiff is directed to 

amend his response to Interrogatory No. 1, without reference to any other document or pleading.

2. Interrogatory No. 2

Interrogatory No. 2: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 

CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendant Fisher violated your Constitutional 

rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff objected to the interrogatory as 

unduly burdensome. Plaintiff also indicates that the question was asked at his deposition and 

responded to. As noted above, the scope of the interrogatory is limited to the allegations in the 

Third Amended Complaint. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff may not refer Defendant(s) to 

allegations in the Third Amended Complaint or to his deposition in order to avoid responding to 

interrogatories. Plaintiff‟s objections are overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel further 

responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 3. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to 

Interrogatory No. 2.

3. Interrogatory No. 3

Interrogatory No. 3: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendant Hall violated 

your Constitutional rights as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff asserts the 

same objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff‟s objections are 

overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 3. 

Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 3. 

4. Interrogatory No 4

Interrogatory No. 4: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 

CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendant Hall violated your Constitutional rights, 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 7 of 17
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

as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff asserts the same objection as he did for 

Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff‟s objections are overruled. Defendants‟ 

motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 4. Plaintiff is directed to 

amend his response to Interrogatory No. 3. 

5. Interrogatory No. 5

Interrogatory No. 5: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendant Hampson 

(nee Rowell) violated your Constitutional rights as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” 

Plaintiff asserts the same objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same 

reasons, Plaintiff‟s objections are overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is 

granted as to Interrogatory No. 5. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory 

No. 5. 

6. Interrogatory No. 6

Interrogatory No. 6: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 

CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendant Hampson (nee Rowell) violated your 

Constitutional rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff asserts the same 

objections as he did with Interrogatory No. 2, as well as an objection that the interrogatory is 

premature as Plaintiff continues to engage in discovery and research. Plaintiff indicates that he is 

providing declarations of witnesses in response to Defendant Rowell‟s Request for Production of 

Documents, Set One. As noted above, Plaintiff‟s responses to interrogatories must be complete 

in and of themselves, without reference to any other response to discovery. Plaintiff‟s objection 

that the discovery is premature is overruled. Plaintiff must respond to Interrogatory No. 6. If 

Plaintiff is aware of a witness, he must say so. If he is unaware of any witnesses, he must so 

indicate in his response. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses to discovery is granted 

as to Interrogatory No. 6. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 6.

7. Interrogatory No. 7

Interrogatory No. 7: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendant Killen 

violated your Constitutional rights as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff 

asserts the same objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff‟s 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 8 of 17
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

objections are overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted as to 

Interrogatory No. 7. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 7. 

8. Interrogatory No. 8

Interrogatory No. 8: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 

CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendant Killen violated your Constitutional 

rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff asserts the same objections as he 

did for Interrogatory No. 6. For the same reasons, Plaintiff‟s objections are overruled. 

Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 8. Plaintiff 

is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 8. 

9. Interrogatory No. 9

Interrogatory No. 9: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendant Rodriguez 

violated your Constitutional rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff 

asserts the same objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff‟s 

objections are overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted as to 

Interrogatory No. 9. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 9.

10. Interrogatory No. 10 

Interrogatory No. 10: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 

CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendant Rodriguez violated your Constitutional 

rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff asserts the same objection as he 

did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff‟s objections are overruled. 

Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 10. Plaintiff 

is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 10. 

11. Interrogatory No. 11

Interrogatory No. 11: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendant Santoro 

violated your Constitutional rights as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff 

asserts the same objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff‟s 

objections are overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted as to 

Interrogatory No. 11. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 11.

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 9 of 17
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

12. Interrogatory No. 12

Interrogatory No. 12: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 

CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendant Santoro violated your Constitutional 

rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff asserts the same objections as 

he did for Interrogatory No. 6. For the same reasons, Plaintiff‟s objections are overruled. 

Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 12. Plaintiff 

is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 12.

13. Interrogatory No. 13

Interrogatory No. 13: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendant Tolson 

violated your Constitutional rights as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff 

responded to Interrogatory 13 by referring to the response given to Interrogatory No. 11, which 

is a verbatim response to Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff‟s objections are 

overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 

13. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 13. 

14. Interrogatory No. 14

Interrogatory No. 14: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 

CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendant Tolson violated your Constitutional 

rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff responded to Interrogatory 14 by 

referring to the response given in to Interrogatory 12. In that response, Plaintiff asserts the same 

objections as he did for Interrogatory 6. For the same reasons, Plaintiff‟s objections are 

overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 14. 

Plaintiff is directed to amend response to Interrogatory No. 14. 

15. Interrogatory No. 15

Interrogatory No. 15: “State all facts that support your claim that Defendants conspired to 

violate your Constitutional rights as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff 

asserts the same objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff‟s 

objections are overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted as to 

Interrogatory No. 15. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 15.

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 10 of 17
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

16. Interrogatory No. 16

Interrogatory No. 16: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 

CDCR number) that support your claim that Defendants conspired to violate your Constitutional 

rights, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff objected to this interrogatory on 

the ground that it is vague and repetitive. Plaintiff referred to his response to Interrogatory No. 

12. Plaintiff‟s response to Interrogatory 12 is identical to his response to Interrogatory No. 6. 

For the same reasons, Plaintiff‟s objections are overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel further 

responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 16. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to 

Interrogatory No. 16.

17. Interrogatory No. 17

Interrogatory No. 17: “Identify all inmate job assignments and/or positions, paid or 

unpaid, that you have been assigned from January 1, 2005, to the present, including the dates and 

the length you held each position.” Plaintiff objects on the ground that it is unduly burdensome 

and repetitive. Plaintiff claims that Defendants themselves have produced this information. 

Plaintiff further objects that the information is equally available to Defendants and are legally 

entitled to review the information in Plaintiff‟s Central File. Defendants note that Plaintiff 

testified during his deposition that he had various objections to the information contained in his 

work assignment history, the very same document he claims to have provided in his responses, 

but did not actually attach. (Mayer Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff is required to provide responses that are 

complete in themselves. See Union Pac. R. Co., 229 F.R.D. at 243; Davidson, 215 F.R.D. at 77; 

Mulero-Abreu, 675 F.3d at 93. Plaintiff‟s objections are overruled. Defendants‟ motion to 

compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 17. Plaintiff is directed to amend his 

response to Interrogatory No. 17. 

18. Interrogatory No. 18

Interrogatory No. 18: “Identify the reason you were unassigned or reassigned from each 

job assignment and/or position listed in your response to Interrogatory No. 17.” Plaintiff‟s 

objections to this interrogatory are the same as his objections to Interrogatory 17. The objections 

are overruled for the same reason. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses should be 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 11 of 17
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

granted as to Interrogatory 18. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory 18.

19. Interrogatory No. 20

Interrogatory No. 20: “Identify all witnesses (if the witness is an inmate include their 

CDCR number) that were present on January 27, 2011 when Defendant Rowell informed you 

“that she and Defendant Killen were well aware that [you were] preparing and planning to file a 

§ 1983 lawsuit against them, and therefore it was necessary for her and other defendants to have 

a „collusion between them,‟‟‟ as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff objects on 

the ground that Defendants only provided him a redacted copy of the library attendance log in 

their discovery responses. Plaintiff indicates that the witness names and CDCR numbers were 

blacked out, preventing Plaintiff from responding to this interrogatory. Defendants note that the 

library logs Plaintiff refers to indicate that Plaintiff was not in the library on January 27, 2011, 

therefore, the redacted information should have no bearing on his ability to respond to this 

question. (Mayer Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also objects, as he did above, that the information was 

provided to defense counsel during his deposition. As noted, this is an improper objection, and 

is overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 

20. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 20. 

20. Interrogatory No. 21

Interrogatory No. 21: “Identify the „other defendants‟ you allege Defendant Rowell 

colluded with, as alleged in Paragraph 8 of your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff asserts 

the same objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff‟s objections 

are overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 

21. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 21. 

21. Interrogatory No. 22

Interrogatory No. 22: “Describe with specificity any interaction or communication, 

written or verbal, you had with Defendant Fisher on July 13, 2011” Plaintiff asserts the same 

objection as he did for Interrogatory No. 2. For the same reasons, Plaintiff‟s objections are 

overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted as to Interrogatory No. 22. 

Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 22. 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 12 of 17
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

13

22. Interrogatory No. 23

Interrogatory No. 23: “Provide the name of the Officer that escorted you to the Facility D 

Library on December 17, 2011, as alleged in your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff‟s 

response: “There were two (2) Correctional Officers that escorted Plaintiff and two other 

prisoners, however, at this time Plaintiff can only provide one of the two Officers‟ names, which 

Defendant Killen herself named in one of her numerous retaliatory CDC 128-A Disciplinary 

Chronos dated December 17, 2011. Correctional Officer D. Espinoza. Defendant Killen herself 

may be able to provide the other Officers name if asked by Counsel.” The burden of providing 

information responsive to this request is on Plaintiff. Plaintiff must respond fully and completely 

to the interrogatory. Defendants are entitled to discover what Plaintiff claims will support his 

allegations. Plaintiff is reminded that he must supplement his interrogatory responses if relevant 

information is subsequently discovered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e)(1)(A). Plaintiff‟s objections are 

overruled as to Interrogatory No. 23. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted 

as to Interrogatory No. 23. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 23.

23. Interrogatory No. 24

Interrogatory No. 24: “Provide the names of each housing unit staff that searched your 

cell and confiscated your personal property on December 27, 2011, based on orders from 

Defendant Killen, as alleged in Paragraph 23 of your Third Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff 

responds that the information is available to Defendants by looking through his housing unit 

records or by asking Defendant Killen. As noted above, Plaintiff may not shift the burden of 

response to Defendants. For the reasons the Court overruled Plaintiff‟s objections to 

Interrogatory No. 23, it does so here. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted 

as to Interrogatory No. 24. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 24.

B. Defendant Killen’s Interrogatories

Defendants contend that Plaintiff responded to only one of Defendant Killen‟s 

Interrogatories. In his opposition, Plaintiff refers to Defendants‟ Exhibit C to their motion to 

compel (ECF No. 72-3.) Exhibit C indicates that Plaintiff responded to Defendant Killen‟s 

Interrogatory No. 1. That interrogatory sought the names of the two correctional officers that 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 13 of 17
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

14

escorted Plaintiff to the Delta Facility Library on December 17, 2011, as alleged in the Third 

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff objected on the ground that the same question was answered in 

Defendant Hampson‟s First Set of Interrogatories, Number 23. Plaintiff also objects on the 

ground that Defendant Killen could find the information herself in one of the disciplinary 

chronos she authored. Without waiving objections, Plaintiff identified one of the officers. 

Regarding the remaining interrogatories, Plaintiff offers no argument that excuses his request to 

respond to them. Defendants‟ motion should therefore be granted. Plaintiff must respond to all 

of Defendant Killen‟s interrogatories, and may not object on any of the grounds that he did in 

Interrogatory No. 1. Plaintiff has the burden of asserting a valid objection of providing an 

answer under oath. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). That the information could be found elsewhere, or 

has been asked by another Defendant, is not a valid objection. Defendants‟ motion to compel 

further responses to Defendant Killen‟s interrogatories is granted. Plaintiff must respond to all 

of Defendant Killen‟s interrogatories. 

C. Requests For Production of Documents

Defendants seek responses to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 19.

1. Request No. 1

Request No. 1 seeks “any and all inmate appeals, 602s, grievances, or other documents 

related to the claims in your lawsuit.” Plaintiff objects on the grounds that the request is 

overbroad and compound as to the scope and vague as to “other documents,” and consists of up 

to or more than a thousand pages. Plaintiff also refers Defendants to his Central File. Plaintiff‟s 

objections are overruled. The scope of the request is limited to the allegations in the Third 

Amended Complaint. A list of all of Plaintiff‟s inmate appeals does not disclose which of these 

appeals Plaintiff claims are relevant to the claims in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is obligated to 

produce responsive documents or identify the responsive documents and where they are located. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). A simple reference to Plaintiff‟s Central File is not responsive to 

the request. Defendants‟ motion compel further responses is granted as to Defendants‟ Request 

for Production of Documents No. 1. Plaintiff is directed to amend his response to Request for 

Production of Documents No. 1. 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 14 of 17
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

15

2. Request No. 2

Request No. 2 seeks “any and all letters, responses to any of your letters, grievances, or 

inmate appeals submitted in connection with the subject matter of this lawsuit.” Plaintiff objects 

on the ground that‟s that the documents are considered confidential as “work product” and as 

correspondence with a member or members of the Bar. Plaintiff also refers the Court to 

Plaintiff‟s Central File. Defendants correctly note that the work product doctrine protects 

documents prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, by or for the party, such as, trial 

preparation that reveal an attorney‟s strategy, intended lines of proof, evaluation of strengths and 

weaknesses, and inferences drawn from interviews. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3); Hickman v. Taylor, 

329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947). Defendants, and the court, cannot assess the validity of whether 

particular relevant documents were generated solely for the purpose of litigation because 

Plaintiff did not identify and describe the documents in a privilege log, as required by Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Plaintiff‟s argument that documents are somehow privileged because he sent 

them to a member of the state bar is without merit. Hickman, 329 U.S. at 511. Defendants‟ 

motion to compel a response to Request No. 2 is granted. Plaintiff is directed to either produce 

the requested documents or produce a privilege log describing the documents in a manner that 

will enable Defendants to assess the claim. Fed. R. Civ. P., 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). 

3. Request No. 3

Request No. 3 seeks “any and all documents that support your claim that the Defendants 

individually or jointly violated your Constitutional rights.” Plaintiff argues that the request is 

vague and overbroad in scope. As with the Plaintiff‟s other requests, this objection is overruled. 

The scope of the request is limited to the allegations of the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff 

also refers to Defendants to the Third Amended Complaint. For the reasons stated above, 

Plaintiff‟s objections are overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel further responses is granted 

as to Request No. 3. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended response to Request for Production 

of Documents No. 3.

4. Request No. 4

Request No. 4 seeks “any and all documents that support your claim that Defendants 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 15 of 17
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

16

conspired to violate your civil rights.” Plaintiff‟s objection is identical to his objection to

Request No. 3. The objections are overruled for the same reasons. Defendants‟ motion to 

compel further responses is granted as to Request No. 4. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended 

response to Request for Production of Documents No. 4. 

5. Request No. 6

Request No. 6 seeks “all personal notes, diaries, journals, or calendars referencing the 

subject matter of this lawsuit from July 1, 2010 to the present.” Plaintiff objects that the request 

is overbroad and compound, and seeks production of documents that are deemed confidential 

under the work product doctrine. For the reasons stated in Request No. 2, Plaintiffs‟ objections 

are overruled. Defendants‟ motion to compel a further response to Request No. 6 is granted. 

Plaintiff is directed to either produce the requested documents or produce a privilege log 

describing the documents in a manner that will enable Defendants to assess the claim. Fed. R. 

Civ. P., 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). 

6. Request No. 19

Request No. 19 seeks “all documents supporting your contention that you had a 

conversation with Inmate Berry on the evening of February 3, 2012.” Plaintiff‟s response 

follows: “Plaintiff objects to defendants‟ wording of „contention‟ as the allegation is fact. 

Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that defendants are making an assumption.” Defendants 

correctly argue that Plaintiff‟s objection to Request No. 19 is not a valid objection. If Plaintiff is 

in possession of documents responsive to this request, he must produce them. If he does not, he 

should so respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). Plaintiff‟s objections are overruled. 

Defendants‟ motion to compel a further response to Request No. 19 is granted. Plaintiff is 

directed to amend his response to Request for Production of Documents No. 19.

III. Modification of Scheduling Order

Defendants seek a modification of the dispositive motion filing deadline on the ground 

that they require Plaintiff‟s supplemental responses to their discovery requests in order to prepare 

a dispositive motion. Good cause appearing, Defendants‟ request is granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 16 of 17
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

17

1. Plaintiff‟s motion to compel and for in camera review (ECF No. 69) is DENIED;

2. Defendants‟ motion to compel further discovery responses (ECF No. 72) is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants Hampson‟s First Set of 

Interrogatories 1-24 (excluding 19), Defendant Killen‟s First Set of Interrogatories, 

and Defendants‟ Request For Production of Documents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 19 within 45 

days of the date of service of this order;

3. Discovery in this matter is otherwise closed; and

4. Defendants‟ motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 72) is GRANTED. 

The dispositive motion filing deadline is extended to March 16, 2016.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 79 Filed 12/11/15 Page 17 of 17