Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00269/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00269-28/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Vincent C. Bruce (“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 proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

claims against: (1) Defendants Adams, Hense, Ward, Clark, Fulks, Wan, Frauenheim, Lloren, Fields, 

and Tripp for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; (2) Defendants Adams, Hense, Ward, 

Clark, Fulks, Wan, Lloren, Fields, and Tripp for violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment; and (3) Defendants Adams, Schottgen, and Fields for failing to provide Plaintiff with 

adequate clothing in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, filed on November 22, 2013, seeking 

to compel Defendants’ further responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories. (ECF No. 152.) Defendants 

opposed the motion on December 10, 2013. (ECF No. 156.) Plaintiff replied on January 15, 2014. 

(ECF No. 164.) The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 

VINCENT C. BRUCE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00269-BAM PC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

(ECF No. 152)

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 176 Filed 09/09/14 Page 1 of 12
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

II. Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories1

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s 

claim or defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the 

subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). Relevant 

information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. (quotation marks omitted).

Parties are obligated to respond to interrogatories to the fullest extent possible under oath, Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Davis 

v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981). The responding party shall use common sense and 

reason. E.g., Collins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2008 WL 1924935, *8 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2008). A 

responding party is not generally required to conduct extensive research in order to answer an 

interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made. Gorrell v. Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 629, 

632 (E.D. Cal. 2013); L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2007 WL 2781132, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2007). 

Further, the responding party has a duty to supplement any responses if the information sought is later 

obtained or the response provided needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A). 

A. Interrogatory (ROG) No. 6 – Defendant Fields

ROG 6: Identify all documents including manuals, handbooks or training documents that 

provide correctional staff including disciplinary hearing officers in 2004 and 2005 with criteria, 

instructions and guidelines to be used in evaluation [sic] the reliability of confidential source 

information. 

Original Response: Responding Party responds as follows: California Code of Regulations, 

Title 15.

Supplemental Response: Responding Party responds as follows:

 California Code of Regulations, title 15, § 3321.

 CDC Form 1030

 

1

The parties are familiar with the procedural background of this action; therefore, the Court finds it unnecessary to recount 

that background in the instant order. 

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 176 Filed 09/09/14 Page 2 of 12
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

Revised ROG 6: Identify the primary manual or handbook (regardless of title or term used to 

described documents(s)) that is responsive to the following: Identify all documents including 

manuals, handbooks or training documents that provide correctional staff including disciplinary 

hearing officers in 2004 and 2005 with criteria, instructions and guidelines to be used in evaluation 

[sic] the reliability of confidential source information. 

Response: The primary sources that provided correctional staff including disciplinary hearing 

officers in 2004 and 2005 with criteria, instructions and guidelines to be used in evaluating the 

reliability of confidential source information were California Code of Regulations, title 15, § 3321 and 

CDC Form 1030. CDCR does not and did not in the past create any official handbook or manual for 

this purpose. Although individual hearing officers may have compiled their own collections of 

selected Title 15 regulations and forms for their own convenience, CDCR does not create separate 

manuals, handbooks, criteria, instructions, or guidelines for evaluating the reliability of confidential 

source information. A thorough search of our records indicates that to the best of our knowledge, 

there were no such records in 2004 or 2005 created by CDCR to be used for this purpose at the 

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have manuals and documents that are not listed in their 

response that limit and apply section 3321, which may be in the Senior Hearing Officer Manual. In 

support of his motion to compel the production of documents (ECF No. 154), Plaintiff submitted a 

declaration and exhibits purporting to be evidence of a Senior Hearing Officer Manual, including a 

one page document entitled “DUE PROCESS” and “CHAPTER TWO” and labeled “SENIOR 

HEARING OFFICER MANUAL,” along with Rules Violation Reports containing definitions. (ECF 

No. 154, Exs. D-F.) Plaintiff declares that the manual existed in 1999 and was provided by a 

correctional officer to an illiterate inmate that Plaintiff was assisting with a grievance. Plaintiff also 

declares that Sergeant M.F. Kemper informed him on November 4, 2013, that the disciplinary 

procedures, instructions and definitions in the Senior Hearing Officer’s Manual are applied statewide 

in inmate hearings. (ECF No. 154, Pl’s Dec. ¶¶ 6-7.) 

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 176 Filed 09/09/14 Page 3 of 12
4

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

Defendant Fields counters that CDCR has never created a Senior Hearing Officer Manual and 

he cannot be compelled to identify or produce a document that does not exist. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s exhibits and declaration, but does not find sufficient 

evidence to conclude that CDCR created a Senior Hearing Officer Manual or that such a manual 

exists. The excerpt submitted by Plaintiff purporting to be evidence of the manual is not sufficient. 

This excerpt contains no information concerning its provenance, including the date of its creation, its 

purpose, its author or its recipients. Plaintiff has not provided independent verification of its 

authenticity. Additionally, Plaintiff himself admits that this is an excerpt from a document created in 

1999, which is not the relevant time period at issue.

Defendant Fields cannot be compelled to identify or produce a document that does not exist. 

B. Interrogatory 7 - Defendant Fields

ROG 7: Identify all documents including manuals, handbooks or training documents that 

relate to staff handling of inmate misconduct including but not limited to:

(a) reporting misconduct on a rules violation report;

(b) selecting the appropriate charge;

(c) classifying the charged misconduct;

(d) changing or amending the charge;

(e) adjudication of the rules violation report;

(f) elements of proof for specific charges; 

(g) review of disciplinary findings by chief disciplinary officer.

Original Response: Responding Party responds as follows: The document that governs 

handling of inmates’ disciplinary hearing is the California Code of Regulations, title 15, §§ 3310-

3326.

Supplemental Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is 

vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. The documents that could be responsive to this request 

(depending on its specific meaning) could be voluminous and could contain information that is not 

disclosable, such as private information about other inmates. Without waiving this objection, 

Defendant responds as follows:

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 176 Filed 09/09/14 Page 4 of 12
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

 California Code of Regulations, title 15, §§ 3310 through 3320.1

 California Code of Regulations, title 15, §§ 3084 through 3085

Revised ROG 7: Identify the primary manual or handbook (regardless of title or term used to 

describe documents(s)) that is responsive to the following: Identify all documents including manuals, 

handbooks or training documents that relate to staff handling of inmate misconduct including but not 

limited to:

(a) reporting misconduct on a rules violation report;

(b) selecting the appropriate charge;

(c) classifying the charged misconduct;

(d) changing or amending the charge;

(e) adjudication of the rules violation report;

(f) elements of proof for specific charges; 

(g) review of disciplinary findings by chief disciplinary officer.

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad 

and does not identify a particular time scope. Without waiving this objection, Defendant responds as 

follows:

The primary source that currently relates and that related in 2004 and 2005 (the relevant time 

period of this lawsuit) to staff handling of the listed matters pertinent to inmate misconduct are/were: 

California Code of Regulations, title 15 §§ 3310 through 3320.1 and California Code of Regulations, 

title 15, §§ 3084 through 3085. CDCR does not create separate manuals, handbooks, criteria, 

instructions or guidelines for this purpose. Although individual hearing officers may have compiled 

their own collections of selected Title 15 regulations for their own convenience, CDCR does not create 

separate manuals or handbooks related to inmate misconduct. A thorough search of records indicates 

that there were no such records in 2004 or 2005 (the relevant time period of this lawsuit) created by 

CDCR to be used for this purpose at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 176 Filed 09/09/14 Page 5 of 12
6

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

Plaintiff again asks the Court to compel a response based on his assertion that a “Senior 

Hearing Officer Manual” exists. Defendant Fields reiterates that CDCR has never created such a 

manual and therefore Defendant cannot identify or produce it. 

For the reasons discussed above, the Court cannot conclude that such a manual created by 

CDCR exists. Therefore, Defendant Fields cannot be compelled to identify or produce a document 

that does not exist. 

C. Interrogatory 1 – Defendants Wan and Tripp

ROG 1: State every reason and fact the other inmates participating in the hunger strike that 

began February 27, 2004 did not receive Rule Violation Reports. If other persons were involved in the 

decision to not issue such reports identify those persons and what was stated.

Response: Defendant [Tripp/Wan] objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds that it is 

overbroad, burdensome, beyond the scope of this litigation, requests information that is relevant to this 

case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.

Plaintiff seeks to compel a response on the ground that the requested information is relevant 

and would show that the motive for charging Plaintiff with misconduct was based on a desire to 

silence complaints. Plaintiff has not demonstrated how the decision not to charge other inmates with 

misconduct is relevant to the charge against him or Defendants’ alleged motivation with regard to 

charging Plaintiff. Additionally, the request is overbroad as it seeks information regarding other 

individuals involved in the hunger strike, which would require review of their individual files. 

D. Interrogatory No. 2 – Defendants Wan and Tripp

ROG 2: State the specific number of “additional medical staff” alleged to have been assigned 

to provide medical evaluations. Include in that identification: 

(a) the full name and assignment of the medical staff

(b) when they were assigned

(c) when they conducted their medical evaluation

(d) the normal number of medical staff assigned to evaluate inmates of SATF.

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 176 Filed 09/09/14 Page 6 of 12
7

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

Response: Defendant [Wan/Tripp] objects to Interrogatory on the grounds that it does not 

identify the specific time-frame to which it refers, it is overbroad, burdensome, beyond the scope of 

this litigation, requests information that is irrelevant to this case, and is not reasonably calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. 

Plaintiff contends that Defendants issued a disciplinary or incident report “alleging as evidence

of a ‘serious disruption’ to the prison that additional medical staff were assigned to the hunger strike.” 

(ECF No. 152, p. 5.) Defendants state that they are open to providing non-confidential, available 

information about medical staff assigned during the hunger strike that is the subject of this case if 

Plaintiff will narrow his request to a more reasonable scope. (ECF No. 156, p.7.)

Plaintiff’s request is overbroad as to time-frame and location. With the exception of the 

statistical information he seeks, Plaintiff also has not demonstrated how the remaining information is 

relevant, such as the names of the assigned staff, the assignment, and when medical evaluations were 

conducted. Notwithstanding these deficiencies, Defendants shall be required to supplement their 

response to Interrogatory No. 2 with the following information:

(1) The number of medical staff regularly assigned to conduct medical evaluations at SATF 

during the six-month period before and after the hunger strike at issue; and

(2) The number of medical staff assigned to conduct medical evaluations at SATF during the 

hunger strike at issue. 

E. Interrogatory No. 3 – Defendants Wan and Tripp

ROG 3: Identify each and every document including training materials used by you to 

determine whether a Rule Violation has occurred during the course of your employment by CDCR. 

Response: Defendant [Wan/Tripp] objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it is 

overbroad, burdensome, beyond the scope of this litigation, requests information that is irrelevant to 

this case, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 

waiving that objection, Defendant responds as follows:

In determining whether a rules violation has occurred, I am guided by the provisions of 

California Code of Regulations, title 15, §§ 3310 through 3320.1, California Code of Regulations title 

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 176 Filed 09/09/14 Page 7 of 12
8

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, §§ 3084 through 3085, and related provisions of Title 15 and the DOM. The primary 

determinative factors, however, are the facts and circumstances of the specific case. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

Defendants correctly note that the request is overbroad, seeks information beyond the scope of 

this litigation, and requests irrelevant information. Plaintiff attempts to limit the scope of the request 

to the hunger strike at issue and claims that there are other documents that all CDCR staff use, such as 

the Senior Hearing Officer Manual. However, as discussed above, there is no indication that CDCR 

has prepared such a manual or that Defendants Wan and Tripp relied upon “other documents all 

CDCR staff use.” 

F. Interrogatory No. 4 – Defendants Adams, Clark, Fulks and Wan

ROG 4: State every action you each took on February 27, 28, and 29 in response to the 

hunger strike occurring on Facility C in 2004. Include in that statement:

(a) any other persons notified of the hunger strike including officials at CDCR headquarters;

(b) when and how other officials were notified of the hunger strike;

(c) any meetings with staff or inmates and the dates of such meetings; 

(d) any and all instructions to the M.A.C. Charimain [sic] – Greenfield on February 29, 2004

(e) if that information is contained in any document identify that document.

Response by Defendant Adams: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that 

it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving that objection, Defendant responds as 

follows: 

I do not recall the specifics of my actions on the dates in question. I recall having a 

conversation with Mr. Greenfield discussing the possible consequences of any mass disturbance. 

Response by Defendant Clark: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it 

is overbroad and burdensome. 

Response by Defendant Fulks: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it 

is overbroad and burdensome. Without waiving that objection, Defendant responds as follows:

(a) E. Sanchez, D. Adams.

(b) E. Sanchez in person on February 27, 2004; D. Adams by telephone on February 28, 2004.

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 176 Filed 09/09/14 Page 8 of 12
9

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

(c) Meeting between D. Adams and the MAC Chairperson on February 28, 2004.

(d) I do not know.

(e) I do not know. 

Response by Defendant Wan: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is 

overbroad and burdensome. Without waiving that objection, Defendant responds as follows:

(a) The Associate Warden, Chief Deputy Warden, and the Warden were notified about the 

incident. I do not know whether the administration notified CDCR Headquarters.

(b) Objections. This question is vague. Without knowing what specific officials are being 

asked about, I cannot answer the question. 

(c) Yes, there were meetings between the staff and inmates (M.A.C.). However, I do not recall 

the specific dates since the meetings took place more than nine years ago.

(d) Instructions were provided to the M.A.C representatives; however, I do not recall the 

instructions, because the incident took place more than nine years ago.

(e) Objection. This question is vague. Without knowing what specific information is being 

asked about, I cannot answer the question.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.

Defendants correctly object that Plaintiff’s request for every action taken on three separate 

days is overbroad and burdensome. However, Plaintiff identified the specific contours of his request. 

With regard to Defendants’ contention that they do not recall events that occurred ten years 

ago, it does not appear that Defendant Adams or Defendant Clark made a reasonable effort to respond 

to Plaintiff’s interrogatory. Discovery is not limited to that information which one easily recalls from 

memory. The burden in responding to discovery is greater than that and Defendants are required to 

make a reasonable effort to respond. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in that 

Defendants Adams and Clark will be required to submit a supplemental response to the subparts of 

Plaintiff’s interrogatory. 

Additionally, Defendant Wan’s objections regarding the vagueness of subparts (b) and (d) are 

overruled. It is evident that Plaintiff seeks information regarding how any of the officials in subpart 

(a) were notified and the identification of documents memorializing the notifications to officials, 

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 176 Filed 09/09/14 Page 9 of 12
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

27

28

meetings with staff and inmates, and instructions to the MAC chairman. Plaintiff’s motion to compel 

is granted in that Defendant Wan will be required to submit a supplemental response to Plaintiff’s 

interrogatory.

The remainder of Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response is denied. 

G. Interrogatory No. 5 – Defendants Fulks and Wan

ROG 5: State what investigation you made into the inmates complaints and grievances 

presented by the representatives of the hunger strikers on February 27, 2004. Include in that statement 

each action you took in investigating the grievances and complaints, the specific results of your 

investigation and the identity of any documents containing this information. 

Response: Defendant [Fulks/Wan] objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it requests 

information that is irrelevant to the issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, it requests information that may threaten the privacy 

rights of individuals who are not parties to this lawsuit, such as other inmates.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.

This interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation, due 

process violations or denial of adequate clothing. Although Plaintiff contends that this interrogatory is 

relevant to his claim of retaliation and “a cover-up of grievances,” such contention is unsupported. 

“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: 

(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that 

prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First 

Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” 

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 

1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009). Information 

regarding the investigation of any underlying grievances does not appear relevant to support a 

retaliation claim. Rather, Plaintiff need only establish that he engaged in protected conduct. 

H. Interrogatory No. 6 – Defendants Ward, Hense and Frauenheim

ROG 6: Identify each and every document that specifically authorized you to impose a SHU 

term on plaintiff for leading or inciting a hunger strike.

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 176 Filed 09/09/14 Page 10 of 12
11

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

Response: Defendant [Ward/Hense/Frauenheim] objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the 

grounds that, as phrased, it is overbroad and burdensome.

Without waiving this objection, Defendant [Ward/Hense/Frauenheim] states:

The primary source of authority is California Code of Regulations, title 15, sections 3341 and 

3315.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.

Plaintiff argues that he requested each and every document, not the primary source of 

authority. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants failed to identify the specific subsections of the cited 

regulations. The Court finds that Defendants have adequately identified the source of authority as 

requested by Plaintiff. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. Where Plaintiff’s motion 

was granted, Defendants have thirty days to serve amended responses, subject to the clarifications and 

limitations discussed. Once Plaintiff is served with the amended responses, he may file an additional 

motion to compel if necessary within thirty days. The motion to compel shall be limited to the 

amended responses. However, Plaintiff is cautioned that his mere disagreement with a substantive 

response is not sufficient. The objections or responses must be incomplete, evasive, or otherwise 

inappropriate to support a request for further relief.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on November 22, 2013, is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants have thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within which to 

serve amended responses to ROG 2 (Wan and Tripp) and ROG 4 (Adams, Clark and Wan); 

b. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is denied as to ROGs 6 and 7 (Fields), 

ROGs 1 and 2 (Wan and Tripp), ROG 4 (Fulks), ROG 5 (Fulks and Wan) and ROG 6 (Ward, Hense 

and Frauenheim). 

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 176 Filed 09/09/14 Page 11 of 12
12

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. If another motion to compel is necessary following receipt of amended responses, the 

filing deadline is thirty (30) days from the date of service of Defendants’ amended responses; and

3. Any motion for an extension of a deadline set forth above must be served on or before 

the deadline in question.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 176 Filed 09/09/14 Page 12 of 12