Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02673/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02673-8/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS D. YOUNG, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OFFICER SANDOVAL, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-2673-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

 The court plaintiff previously granted plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and ordered 

defendant to provide amended responses to three of plaintiff’s requests for production.1 ECF No. 

33; see also ECF No. 38 (denying defendant’s motion for reconsideration). Defendant 

subsequently filed a notice of compliance with that order. ECF No. 39. Plaintiff disputed that 

representation and alleged that defendant had not complied. ECF No 40. The court ordered a 

response by defendant, ECF No. 42, which has been submitted, ECF No. 44. Additionally, 

plaintiff has filed a “Motion to Amend” his discovery motion to clarify that he is seeking 

defendant’s personnel records. ECF No. 45. Each is addressed below. 

Finally, the court reconsiders and grants plaintiff’s earlier request for appointment of 

counsel, ECF No. 22. 

 1

 This is an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a state prisoner who is proceeding 

without counsel. 

Case 2:12-cv-02673-KJM-EFB Document 50 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 5
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

I. Compliance with the July 1, 2014 Order 

Plaintiff is mistaken in his claim that defendant has not complied with the earlier 

discovery order. The court directed defendant to provide amended responses to plaintiff’s 

requests for (1) documents related to CDCR’s Zone-1 Policy, (2) “central file and all documents 

related to disciplinary reports of the defendant,” and (3) “[s]hooting range score records and all 

related Shooting Training Documents.” ECF No. 33 at 2-3. 

Defendant has since located and provided to plaintiff one additional document related to 

the CDCR’s Zone-1 Policy. ECF No. 44 at 1. Additionally, defendant has submitted to the court 

the declaration of D. Rosensteel which certifies that plaintiff has been provided all documents 

related to the Zone-1 Policy. ECF No. 44-1, Ex. E. Thus, this part of the order has been satisfied. 

 The order also directed an amended response to the request for “central file and all 

documents related to disciplinary reports of the defendant.” ECF No. 33 at 3. Plaintiff’s request 

for the “central file” was interpreted by the court as a request for plaintiff’s central file.2 Id. 

Defendant has submitted to the court the declaration of D. Chance, which states that plaintiff has 

been informed of his right to access and obtain copies of the non-confidential portions of 

plaintiff’s central file. ECF No. 44-1, Ex. D. Thus, it appears that this part of the order has been 

satisfied. 

As discussed below, plaintiff has clarified that his request is for the defendant’s personnel 

records, not plaintiff’s central file. Defendant has submitted the declaration of C. Siegler states 

that there are no records “indicating that [defendant] had been disciplined at CSP-Sacramento.” 

ECF No. 44-1, Ex. C. That declaration and plaintiff’s clarification that he is seeking defendant’s 

records are addressed below regarding plaintiff’s “motion to amend.” 

Finally, the order directed defendant to provide plaintiff with shooting range score records 

and all related shooting training documents. ECF No. 33 at 3. Defendant has provided a 

verification that “there are no records concerning shooting range scores and shooting training, 

 2

 In overruling defendant’s vagueness objection to the request, the court stated: “If the 

words ‘central file’ could be read to mean anything other than the department’s records relevant 

to the plaintiff, defendant has failed to explain how.” ECF No. 33 at 3. Understandably, the 

defendant responded based on that reading of the request. 

Case 2:12-cv-02673-KJM-EFB Document 50 Filed 04/29/15 Page 2 of 5
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

other than what has been produced . . . .” ECF No. 47 at 1; see also ECF No. 44-1, Ex. E 

(declaring that D. Rosensteel “searched the records at CSP-Sac concerning shooting range records 

and shooting training records regarding [defendant], and these records do not exist”). Thus, that 

part of the order has been satisfied. 

 In short, although plaintiff has now clarified that he wants records from the defendant’s 

personnel file, there appears to be no basis for the contention that defendant has not complied 

with the court’s order. The defendant has complied with the July 1, 2014 order. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend His Discovery Motion 

 Plaintiff seeks to amend his motion to compel to clarify that he is requesting production of 

the defendant’s “central file” not his own. ECF No. 45 at 1. As noted, the court interpreted 

plaintiff’s use of the words “central file” in his discovery request as a request for his central file at 

the prison. See ECF No. 33 at 3. Plaintiff clarifies that he wants the defendant’s personnel 

records.3 He also points out that defendant’s own filings show that defendant understood that 

plaintiff was actually seeking defendant’s records. See, e.g., ECF No. 44-1, Ex. B (“To the extent 

that his request includes personnel files of Defendant . . . .”); ECF No. 47 at 3 (“Acting on the 

assumption that [plaintiff] actually was seeking [defendant’s] personnel file . . . .”). 

 Defendant opposes the production of his personnel file because it allegedly contains 

documents that are privileged and protected by a right of privacy. Contrary to defendant’s 

suggestion, documents that are a part of the personnel records of officers defending civil rights 

actions—even documents containing sensitive information—are not categorically exempt from 

the scope of discovery. See 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). Rather, federal courts engage in a balancing test to determine 

whether “the burdens of the requests outweigh[ ] their potential benefits” by considering (1) the 

 3

 “Central file” is a reference typically used to refer to an inmate’s file. Although plaintiff 

could have been more specific—or used “personnel file” instead of “central file”—his argument 

does not require an unreasonable reading of his request for production. See ECF No. 26 at 2 

(“REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION: Central File and all documents related to disciplinary reports 

of the defendant.”). 

Case 2:12-cv-02673-KJM-EFB Document 50 Filed 04/29/15 Page 3 of 5
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

“relevancy” of the moving party’s discovery requests within the scope of Rule 26, and (2) the 

responding party’s objections, if they are “clearly articulated” to show why discovery should not 

be allowed. See Sorosky v. Burroughs Corp., 826 F.2d 794, 805 (9th Cir. 1987); Blankenship v. 

Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Prima Bella Produce, 

Inc., 1:10–CV–00148 LJO, 2011 WL 2518948 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2011). Here, the requested 

disciplinary records as to the defendant are relevant. Moreover, defendant has not provided a 

privilege log or any supporting argument for the blanket assertion of privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(5). Further, defendant’s concerns relating to privacy and security—such as disclosure of 

defendant’s social security number, home address, names of dependents, and employment 

benefits, or other sensitive information, ECF No. 47 at 4—can be addressed through redaction of 

the relevant documents. 

 Of course, plaintiff’s entitlement to information from defendant’s official personnel 

records, is not unlimited. Plaintiff has not narrowed the scope of his request in either time or 

subject matter, and the request is therefore overly broad. Accordingly, the motion for an order to 

produce the entirety of defendant’s personnel records is denied. However, the motion is granted 

as to documents pertaining to complaints, investigations, and disciplinary actions taken against 

defendant while defendant was employed by CDCR for alleged conduct that is similar to that 

alleged in plaintiff’s complaint (i.e., excessive force). See, e.g., Haney v. Woods, No. 2:11-cv2196 JAM EFB P, 2013 WL 870665, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2013) (explaining that a similar 

request for discovery was reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence in support of 

plaintiff’s claims). Defendant shall either produce any such records, or provide a proper 

verification that no such records exist.4

 4

 Defendant’s response to the discovery request states that a reasonable inquiry and 

diligent search was conducted and it was learned that there are no such documents because “the 

responding party [defendant] has not been disciplined by CDCR.” ECF No. 44-1 at 12. The 

response is signed by counsel but does not include a verification by the person or persons who 

conducted the search. 

Defendant also represents to the court in his reply “that there are no records indicating that 

Defendant had been disciplined by CDCR.” ECF No. 44 at 1. While that representation may be 

true it, too, is not verified by the person or persons with personal knowledge as to the search 

conducted or the facts revealed. Further, the declaration attached to defendant’s reply states only 

Case 2:12-cv-02673-KJM-EFB Document 50 Filed 04/29/15 Page 4 of 5
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

III. Appointment of Counsel 

The court previously denied plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. See ECF 

No. 24. The court sua sponte reconsiders and grants the motion. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. The court finds that defendant has complied with the July 1, 2014 discovery order. 

2. Plaintiff’s request to amend (ECF No. 45) his discovery motion is granted. 

3. Plaintiff’s amended motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. The 

request to compel production of the entirety of defendant’s personnel records is 

denied. The request to compel production of information bearing on any allegations 

or discipline of defendant for excessive force is granted. Within 21 days of the date of 

this order, defendant shall either produce relevant documents, including documents 

from personnel files, concerning any complaints, investigations and disciplinary 

actions while defendant was employed by CDCR, for alleged conduct that is similar to 

that alleged in plaintiff’s complaint (i.e., excessive force), or provide a properly 

verified response that no such records exist. 

4. The February 4, 2014 order denying plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 

(ECF No. 24) is reconsidered and, upon reconsideration, plaintiff’s request for the 

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22) is granted. The case is referred to Sujean Park, 

the court’s pro bono coordinator. 

DATED: April 28, 2015. 

 

that there are no records indicating defendant has been “disciplined in the course of his duties at 

CSP-Sacramento.” ECF No. 44-1 at Ex. C. Thus, as written, the declaration is not fully 

responsive and neither it nor the discovery response is sufficient to serve as a verified response. 

Case 2:12-cv-02673-KJM-EFB Document 50 Filed 04/29/15 Page 5 of 5