Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02922/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02922-15/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 

JOSEPH JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

E. SANDY, et al., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-2922 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is plaintiff’s request for production of documents 

and motion to compel. ECF No. 168. 

I. Request for Production and Motion to Compel 

Discovery in this matter closed on June 6, 2014. ECF No. 53 at 5. On September 15, 

2014, discovery was re-opened for the limited purpose of resolving pending discovery disputes 

and given a new deadline of October 23, 2014. ECF No. 61 at 21, 23. The court has already 

denied two previous requests from plaintiff to re-open discovery so that he may submit additional 

requests. ECF Nos. 72, 155. The current request to submit discovery requests and motion to 

compel will also be denied. 

 In his request for production and motion to compel, plaintiff submits four requests for 

documents. He argues the information sought was requested within the discovery time limits. 

Case 2:12-cv-02922-JAM-AC Document 169 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 3
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

ECF No. 168. The court finds, however, that plaintiff’s first request is an expansion of Requests 

for Production, Set One, Number 28 and Set Two, Number 7. ECF No. 56-4 at 16, 26. The 

original requests demonstrate that plaintiff believed that defendants’ medical records may be 

necessary for his pursuit of this case and he has not offered any explanation as to why he could 

not have sought more comprehensive medical records at that time. 

The second and third requests are duplicative of Request for Production, Set Two, 

Number 15 (ECF No. 56-4 at 30), which has already been addressed by this court (ECF No. 155 

at 3-4). As has already been stated, defendants have averred that the only audio or video recorded 

witness interview regarding the use of force against plaintiff was plaintiff’s own interview from 

August 22, 2012, and while defendants are under an ongoing obligation to supplement their 

responses, the court cannot order them to produce something that does not exist. ECF No. 61 at 

11-12; ECF No. 155 at 3-4. This means that while defendants have an obligation to produce any 

recordings of inmate Faris’s interview that they may subsequently discover, the court cannot 

compel production in light of the sworn representation that such recordings do not exist. The 

court will not address this issue again. 

Finally, plaintiff’s fourth request is for the report the Office of Internal Affairs made in 

response to Warden Swarthout’s request for investigation. While this request seeks 

supplementation of documents plaintiff was only recently given an opportunity to review, Bates 

numbered page 40 of those documents clearly states that after reviewing the request, the Office of 

Internal Affairs denied the request for an investigation, meaning that there is no investigative 

report. 

For these reasons, plaintiff’s request for production of documents and motion to compel 

will be denied. 

II. Sealed Documents 

 On March 14, 2016, the court granted defendants’ motion to file under seal. ECF 

No. 163. It appears that defendants have not yet submitted the documents to the Clerk of the 

Court for filing. If they have not already done so, defendants shall submit discovery documents 

Bates numbered pages 28-34, 36-42, and 46-51 to the Clerk of the Court for filing under seal no 

Case 2:12-cv-02922-JAM-AC Document 169 Filed 03/23/16 Page 2 of 3
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

later than March 25, 2016. The documents shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Court in 

accordance with the procedures outlined in Local Rule 141(e)(2)(i). 

III. Summary 

 Plaintiff’s request for production and motion to compel is denied because plaintiff has not 

shown that he could not ask for defendants’ medical records during the original discovery period; 

his requests related to inmate Faris’s interview are the same as his previous requests and have 

already been addressed by the court; and the documents plaintiff was allowed to review show that 

the warden’s request for an investigation was denied. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for production and motion to compel (ECF No. 168) is denied. 

 2. If they have not already done so, defendants shall submit discovery documents Bates 

numbered pages 28-34, 36-42, and 46-51 to the Clerk of the Court for filing under seal no later 

than March 25, 2016. The documents shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Court in accordance 

with the procedures outlined in Local Rule 141(e)(2)(i). 

DATED: March 22, 2016. 

Case 2:12-cv-02922-JAM-AC Document 169 Filed 03/23/16 Page 3 of 3