Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05980/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05980-9/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

EDWARD JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. T. LUNDY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-05980-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL A RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT

PRODUCTION REQUEST NUMBER 5

(Docs. 41, 49, and 52)

Plaintiff Edward Jones (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed April 18, 2005, against defendants Lundy, Manning, and

Cadena (“defendants”) for using excessive physical force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On January 25, 2007, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion

to compel filed on December 20, 2006. The order stated in relevant part:

POD 5: Plaintiff seeks defendants’ personnel files forthe past five years. Defendants

object on the grounds that the request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and on the

grounds of confidentiality and privilege. 

“Government personnel files are considered official information.” Sanchez v. City

of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 957, 112

S.Ct. 416 (1991); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 299 C.D. Cal. 1992).

However, defendants’ bare, unsupported objection of confidentiality and privilege

is insufficient to avoid production of discoverable documents from defendants’

personnel files. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613; Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 669. 

Plaintiff seeks this information as character evidence showing defendants’ propensity

for violence. Character evidence “is not admissible to prove the character of a person

in order to show action in conformity therewith,” Fed. R. Ev. 404(b), and despite

Case 1:03-cv-05980-DLB Document 57 Filed 03/22/07 Page 1 of 2
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

plaintiff’s argument to the contrary, defendants’ character or character traits are not

an essential element of plaintiff’s excessive force claim against, Fed. R. Ev. 405(b).

However, character evidence may be admissible for other purposes and plaintiff is

entitled to discoverable information.

Plaintiff’s request as presently drafted is overly broad. If plaintiff is willing to

narrow his inquiry to a period of three years and limit it to like circumstances, the

court will grant his motion and direct defendants to produce any documents in their

personnel files responsive to the request. However, plaintiff is required to notify the

court and defendants whether he accepts this limitation within thirty days. If

plaintiff fails to do so, his motion to compel a response to this request is deemed

denied. If plaintiff acceptsthe limitation and notifies defendants and the court of his

acceptance within thirty days, defendants have thirty days thereafter to respond.

Names and personal information of other inmates or individuals other than the named

defendants may be redacted from the documents, and any of defendants’ personal

information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, home addresses, etc. may

be redacted. If further disputes or concerns arise, the parties may at that time contact

the court for assistance. 

(Doc. 49, 3:3-27 (emphasis added).)

On February 13, 2007, plaintiff notified the court that he does not accept the limitation and

believes he is entitled to a response to his request as drafted. (Doc. 52.) In light of plaintiff’s

unwillingness to accept the court’s limitation of his document request, plaintiff’s request is denied

in full as overly broad.

In accordance with the mandates of the court’s order filed January 25, 2007, plaintiff’s

motion to compel a response to his request for the production of documents, number 5, filed

December 20, 2006, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05980-DLB Document 57 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 2