Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02689/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02689-5/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

MICHAEL CLARK, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-2689 FCD GGH P

vs.

L. WARREN, et al.,

Defendant. 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 are several motions to compel filed by plaintiff on

November 23, 2005.

Background

To put plaintiff’s discovery requests in context, the court will set forth the claims

on which this action is proceeding.

Plaintiff alleges that on January 8, 2002, defendants Warren, Elorza, Williams and

Driggers removed plaintiff from the vocations waiting list and reduced his status in retaliation for

plaintiff complaining about staff misconduct. Plaintiff has also stated state law claims against

these defendants as well as defendants Enriquez, Alameida and Rianda. The federal claims

against defendants Enriquez, Alameida and Rianda have been dismissed.

Case 2:02-cv-02689-FCD-GGH Document 91 Filed 02/06/06 Page 1 of 10
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

Interrogatories

Interrogatory no. 1 asked all defendants to state their full names and positions. 

Defendant Alameida responded that his name was Edward S. Alameida and that he was retired. 

This interrogatory has been adequately responded to. The remaining defendants identified their

positions but refused to give their first names. Most prisoner case defendants are identified in

court by their first and last name. The other defendants shall give plaintiff their first names.

Plaintiff contends that defendants did not adequately answer interrogatory no. 4

which asked if defendants or anyone acting on their behalf had obtained a written or recorded

statement from any individual concerning plaintiff’s claims. Defendant Alameida objected that

this interrogatory sought information that was subject to the attorney-client communication

privilege or was protected by attorney work product. Notwithstanding this objection, defendant

responded that the Inmate Appeals Branch received plaintiff’s administrative appeal which

contained a statement of some of plaintiff’s claims. Defendant is representing that this is the

only document he received regarding plaintiff’s claims that is not covered by the attorney-client

information privilege. 

To the extent plaintiff seeks communications between defendant and counsel, the

information sought would be subject to the attorney-client communication privilege. It appears

that defendant Alameida has adequately responded to this request. 

The other defendants answered interrogatory no. 4 by objecting to the extent that

it sought information subject to the attorney-client communication privilege or was protected by

attorney work product. Notwithstanding these objections, defendants Warren, Drigger, Williams

and Elorzas answered “No.” Defendants Enriquez and Rianda answered, “Yes.” To the extent

plaintiff seeks communications between defendants and their counsel, the information sought is

barred by the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff has offered no evidence suggesting that the “yes”

and “no” responses from the other defendants, notwithstanding their objections, are false. 

Accordingly, the court finds that defendants have adequately answered this interrogatory.

Case 2:02-cv-02689-FCD-GGH Document 91 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 10
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

Plaintiff contends that defendant Alameida did not adequately answer

interrogatory no. 5 which asked, “If your response to interrogatory 4 is yes, identify the

individuals.” Defendant Alameida responded that he had no personal knowledge or information

in his possession, custody, or control that enabled him to identify the staff at the Inmate Appeals

Branch who received plaintiff’s inmate appeal concerning the claims alleged in this action.

Defendant Alameida has adequately answered this interrogatory. 

Plaintiff contends that defendants Alameida, Elorza, Enriquez and Rianda did not

adequately answer interrogatory no. 6 which asked if their response to interrogatory no. 4 was

yes, to identify or provide a copy of each written or recorded statement. Defendants Alameida,

Rianda and Enriquez identified CDC 602 Appeal, MCSP Log No. 02-542. These defendants

have adequately responded to this interrogatory. Defendant Elorza objected to the interrogatory

on grounds that the requested writings were privileged attorney-client communications. Because

defendant Elorza apparently possesses no documents in response to interrogatory no. 4 other than

privileged attorney-client communications, the court finds that this defendant has adequately

responded to this interrogatory.

Interrogatory no. 20 asked all defendants, “Have officials of the California

Department of Corrections (CDC) informed plaintiff in inmate appeals that he cannot file an

administrative appeal challenging acts and/or omissions taken by CDC officials in responding to

an appeal?” Defendants all responded, “Responding party did not inform plaintiff that he cannot

file an administrative appeal challenging acts or omissions of CDCR officials responding to an

appeal, and lacks sufficient knowledge, information, or belief on which to base an interrogatory

as it relates to anyone other than himself.” Defendants each represent that they answered the

interrogatory to the best of their personal knowledge. Accordingly, the court finds that

defendants adequately answered this interrogatory.

Interrogatory no. 21 asked, “Is reduction of an inmate’s privilege group punitive?” 

Defendants objected that this interrogatory was vague and called for a legal conclusion. The

Case 2:02-cv-02689-FCD-GGH Document 91 Filed 02/06/06 Page 3 of 10
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

term “punitive” is not vague and nor does it seek a legal conclusion. Defendants are ordered to

answer this interrogatory. The answer to this interrogatory will not be burdensome. The answer

may be “yes,” “no,” or “it depends [on the circumstances].” Defendants will not have to spell out

all the various scenarios under “it depends.”

Interrogatory no. 23 asked, “On July 19, 2002, why was plaintiff granted privilege

group ‘A’ effective from January 8, 2002?” Defendants each responded that they did not know

the answer to this question. Plaintiff objects that defendants did not make a reasonable inquiry to

provide this information. The court presumes that defendants made the necessary inquiries and

plaintiff has provided no evidence to suggest otherwise. Accordingly, the court finds that

defendants’ responses to this interrogatory are adequate.

Interrogatory no. 24 asked, “Did the January 8, 2002, reduction of plaintiff’s

privilege group from ‘A’ to ‘B’ make plaintiff afraid to complain to officials at Mule Creek State

Prison when officials disclosed confidential information about plaintiff to other prisoners?” 

Interrogatory no. 25 asked, “Did plaintiff decline privilege group ‘A’ on July 19, 2002, because

he was afraid it would be reduced by additional retaliation by staff?” Defendants responded to

these interrogatories that they did not know whether plaintiff was afraid or why plaintiff declined

privilege group A. Defendants adequately responded to these interrogatories as they could not

know the answers to these questions unless plaintiff specifically told them.

Requests for Admissions

Plaintiff argues that defendants did not adequately respond to his requests for

admissions. Plaintiff served each defendant with an identical set of fifteen requests for

admissions. In each request, plaintiff asked defendants to admit the authenticity of various

documents. Defendants admitted the authenticity of four documents. In particular, defendants

admitted the authenticity of request nos. 4, 6, 12 and 13.

With respect to the other documents, defendants stated that they lacked personal

knowledge of the request for admission and had no information in their possession, custody or

Case 2:02-cv-02689-FCD-GGH Document 91 Filed 02/06/06 Page 4 of 10
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

5

control that enabled them to admit or deny these requests. After reviewing the record, it appears

that defendants’ objections regarding the remaining requests have merit. For example,

defendants state that they cannot authenticate request for admission no. 3 which is a copy of an

order filed May 5, 1995, in Ashker v. Rowland, CIV S-89-1473 LKK GGH P. The court cannot

order defendants to authenticate orders filed in other actions to which they were not parties. 

Plaintiff also asked defendants to authenticate request for admission no. 14 which is a copy of an

amended complaint apparently filed by plaintiff in the Sacramento County Superior Court.

Defendants cannot authenticate this document. 

The court cannot order defendants to authenticate documents which they neither

possess nor have knowledge of. As observed by defendants in their opposition to this motion to

compel, plaintiff may ask the court to take judicial notice of several of the documents he seeks

authentication of. It also appears that plaintiff may himself be able to authenticate some of these

documents.

Defendants also object to the request for admissions on grounds that the

documents identified are not relevant nor likely to lead to admissible evidence. The court need

not reach this argument. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his

requests for admissions is denied.

Request for Production of Documents

Requests Addressed to Defendants Warren, Elorza, Williams, Driggers, Enriquez 

and Rianda

Defendants’ responses to request nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 are

identical. Accordingly, the court will first set forth these requests.

Request no. 1: “All documents concerning written or oral complaints, grievances,

or appeals, alleging contending, discussing, or sustaining you engaged in any type 

of misbehavior, incompatible activity, or unprofessional conduct while an 

employee of the California Department of Corrections (CDC) for the five year

period preceding this demand.”

\\\\\

Case 2:02-cv-02689-FCD-GGH Document 91 Filed 02/06/06 Page 5 of 10
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

6

Request no. 2: “All documents concerning and describing your job description 

and duties as a CDC employee for the five year period preceding this demand.” 

Request no. 3: “All documents concerning and describing your qualifications for 

all of your duties as a CDC employee for the five year period preceding this 

demand.”

Request no. 4: “All documents concerning training you have received relating to 

classification committee functions and responsibilities for the five year period 

preceding this demand.”

Request no. 5: “All documents describing and concerning all training you have 

received relating to CDC rules and regulations for the five year period preceding 

this demand.”

Request no. 7: “The CDC video identified and shown on CDC institution 

television channels as ‘The Inmates Appeals Process and You.’”

Request no. 8: “A transcription of the CDC video identified and shown on CDC 

institution television channels as ‘The Inmate Appeals Process and You.’”

Request no. 10: “All documents describing and concerning written or oral 

complaints, grievances, or appeals alleging, contending, discussing, or sustaining 

the Facility B Unit Classification Committee at Mule Creek State Prison exceeded

its authority or improperly performed its functions for the five year period 

preceding this demand.”

Request no. 11: “All documents your employee evaluation reports [sic] as a CDC 

employee for the five year period preceding this demand.”

Request no. 13: All documents modifying any decision by the Unit Classification 

Committee of Facility B at Mule Creek State Prison privilege group for the five 

years preceding this demand.” 

Defendants objected to these requests on grounds that they were overbroad,

burdensome, not relevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Subject

to waiving this objection, all defendants responded that they had none of these documents in their 

possession, custody or control in response to this request. 

Before the court reaches each individual request, the court reminds plaintiff that

his case involves an alleged removal of plaintiff from a vocations waiting list on account of

retaliatory behavior on the part of defendants. The nature of the claim in this case does not call

for the type of burdensome, harassing discovery propounded by plaintiff. Being given by law the

right and privilege of seeking redress for wrongs in court does not permit a party to wage war

Case 2:02-cv-02689-FCD-GGH Document 91 Filed 02/06/06 Page 6 of 10
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

7

against his adversaries via the discovery process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) provides in pertinent

part that the court may deny or limit discovery when the “burden or expense of the proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in

controversy, the parties resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the

importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.” The requests for production at

issue are collectively denied based on this principle.

In the alternative, turning to the individual requests at issue, the court finds no

merit to plaintiff’s requests.

With respect to request no. 1, not every grievance alleging misbehavior against

each defendant for the past five years would be relevant to this action. For this reason, the

motion to compel with respect to request no. 1 is denied.

With respect to request nos. 2 and 3, not every document containing defendants’

job descriptions or qualifications for their duties for the past five years is necessarily relevant to

this action. While the court suspects that defendants would be able to locate documents

regarding their job descriptions and qualifications, the motion to compel request nos. 2 and 3 is

denied on grounds that these requests are overbroad and seek information not relevant to this

action.

With respect to request no. 4, because this action concerns defendants’ conduct at

a classification committee hearing, information regarding their training to conduct classification

committee hearings may be relevant. However, defendants represent that they do not possess or

have within their control or custody documents which would respond to this request. Under

these circumstances, the court cannot order defendants to produce these documents. 

Accordingly, the motion to compel with respect to request no. 4 is denied.

With respect to request no. 5, all documents describing and concerning

defendants’ training as to all CDC regulations are not relevant to this action. Accordingly, the

motion to compel with respect to this request is denied because it is overbroad. 

Case 2:02-cv-02689-FCD-GGH Document 91 Filed 02/06/06 Page 7 of 10
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

8

With respect to request nos. 6 and 7, it is unclear how a video regarding the

inmate appeal process is relevant to this action as plaintiff alleges that defendants retaliated

against him during a classification committee hearing. In any event, defendants state that they do

not possess the video or the transcript. The court cannot order defendants to produce documents

or videos they do not possess. Accordingly, the motion to compel with respect to these requests

is denied.

With respect to request no. 10, not all documents regarding complaints concerning

the Facility B Classification Committee are relevant to this action. Accordingly, the motion to

compel with respect to this request is denied because it is overbroad.

With respect to request no. 11, defendants additionally object that plaintiff’s

request for their employee evaluations for the past five years infringes on their privacy rights. 

While this is most likely true, not all information contained in defendants’ employee evaluations

is relevant to this action. Accordingly, the motion to compel with respect to this request is

denied as overbroad.

With respect to request no. 13, not all documents modifying any decision by the

Facility B Unit Classification Committee regarding a privilege group within the past five years

are relevant to this action. Accordingly, the motion to compel with respect to this request is

denied as overbroad.

Request no. 6 sought all documents describing and concerning all training

defendants received relating to CDC inmates appeals and responses for the five year period

preceding this demand. Request no. 9 sought all documents describing and concerning all

training defendants received relating to the rights or prisoners for the previous five years. 

Defendants objected to these requests on grounds that they were vague, overburdensome and

sought information that was not relevant. Defendants did not represent that they did not possess

these documents. 

\\\\\

Case 2:02-cv-02689-FCD-GGH Document 91 Filed 02/06/06 Page 8 of 10
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

9

With respect to request no. 6, it is unclear how these documents are relevant to

this action. Accordingly, the motion to compel with respect to this request is denied. With

respect to request no. 9, it is clear that not all documents describing defendants’ training

regarding the rights of prisoners for the past five years are relevant to this action. Accordingly,

the motion to compel with respect to this request is denied on grounds that this request is

overbroad.

Request no. 12 sought all documents authorizing the Unit Classification

Committee of Facility B at Mule Creek State Prison to reduce plaintiff’s privilege group from

“A” to “B” on January 8, 2002. Defendants responded to this request by producing copies of §

3044 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, contained in attachment one. Plaintiff

objects that defendants did not identify which subsections of § 3044 defendants relied on to

reduce his privilege group. After reviewing this document, the court finds that it adequately

responds to plaintiff’s request. Defendants are not required to provide further explanation.

Defendant Alameida

Plaintiff first objects to defendant Alameida’s responses to request nos. 4-32. In

these requests, plaintiff asks defendant to produce all documents concerning various sections of

Title 15 from their initial enactment to the present, including the statement of reasons for the

regulation and any amendments. Defendant objected to these requests on grounds that they were

overbroad. Notwithstanding this objection, defendant stated that he did not possess all of the

requested documents, but did provide plaintiff with a copy of the relevant regulation. 

The court cannot order defendant to produce the history of the regulations if he

does not possess such documents. Accordingly, the court finds that defendant has adequately

responded to these interrogatories.

Finally, at issue are defendant Alameida’s responses to request nos. 36, 37 and 38. 

Request no. 36 sought all documents provided to defendants in the preceding five years

concerning classification committee functions and responsibilities. Request no. 37 sought all

Case 2:02-cv-02689-FCD-GGH Document 91 Filed 02/06/06 Page 9 of 10
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

10

documents provided to each defendant within the past five years concerning CDC rules and

regulations. Request no. 38 sought all documents provided to defendants within the past five

years regarding inmates appeals and responses.

Defendant objected that request nos. 36, 27, and 38 were overbroad and sought

information that was not relevant. The court agrees that these requests are overbroad. Not every

document provided to defendants within the past five years regarding classification committee

functions, CDC rules and regulations and inmates appeals is relevant or likely to lead to relevant

information. Accordingly, the motion to compel with respect to these requests is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 23, 2005, motions to compel further responses to

interrogatories (court file doc. nos. 68-74) are granted, as discussed above, with respect to

interrogatories nos. 1 and 21; defendants shall provide plaintiff with further responses within ten

days of the date of this order; the motions to compel are denied in all other respects.

2. Plaintiff’s November 23, 2005, motion to compel further responses to requests

for admissions (court file doc. no. 75) is denied; 

3. Plaintiff’s November 23, 2005, motions to compel further responses to

requests for production of documents (court file doc. nos. 76-82) are denied.

DATED: 2/6/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cla2689.com

Case 2:02-cv-02689-FCD-GGH Document 91 Filed 02/06/06 Page 10 of 10