Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00293/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00293-8/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS TO COMPEL

ECF Nos. 31, 40

I. Background

Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against 1) 

Defendants Vasquez, T. Wan, C. Moreno, R. Tolsen, B. Peterson, Clark, Allison, R. Diaz, S. 

Sherman, and Does 1 through 10 for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment 

for deprivation of exercise and 2) Vasquez, Moreno, Tolsen, Peterson, Clark, Allison, Diaz, 

Sherman, A. Hernandez, Gomez, and Does 1 through 10 for violation of the Equal Protection Clause 

of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On November 19, 2012, and January 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed motions to compel. ECF Nos. 

31, 40. On December 10, 2012, and January 25, 2013, Defendants filed their opposition. ECF Nos. 

34, 43. On January 9, 2013 and February 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed his reply. ECF Nos. 41, 46. The 

matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 53 Filed 03/25/13 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

27

28

2

II. November 19, 2012 Motion to Compel

Plaintiff moves to compel the production of documents in response to his request for 

production of documents, set one.1 In responding to discovery requests, defendants must produce 

documents or other tangible things which are in their “possession, custody or control.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 34(a). Responses must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as 

requested, or state an objection, including the reasons. Id. 34(b)(2)(B).

Actual possession, custody or control is not required. “A party may be ordered to produce a 

document in the possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document 

or has control over the entity who is in possession of the document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 

F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995). As the Court explained in Allen v. Woodford, 2007, U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 11026, *4-6, 2007 WL 309945, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007) (internal citations and 

quotations omitted):

Property is deemed within a party’s possession, custody, or control if the party has 

actual possession, custody, or control thereof or the legal right to obtain the property 

on demand. A party having actual possession of documents must allow discovery 

even if the documents belong to someone else; legal ownership of the documents is 

not determinative. Control need not be actual control; courts construe it broadly as 

the legal right to obtain documents upon demand. Legal right is evaluated in the 

context of the facts of each case. The determination of control is often fact specific. 

Central to each case is the relationship between the party and the person or entity 

having actual possession of the document. The requisite relationship is one where a 

party can order the person or entity in actual possession of the documents to release 

them. This position of control is usually the result of statute, affiliation or 

employment. Control may be established by the existence of a principal-agent 

relationship.

Such documents also include documents under the control of the party’s attorney. Meeks v. Parson, 

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90283, 2009 WL 3303718 (E.D. Cal. September 18, 2009) (involving a 

subpoena to the CDCR); Axler v. Scientific Ecology Group, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 210, 212 (D. Mass. 

2000) (A “party must product otherwise discoverable documents that are in his attorneys’ 

possession, custody or control.”); Gray v. Faulkner, 148 F.R.D. 220, 223 (N.D. Ill. 1992); see also

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(e) (“No case records file, unit health records, or component thereof 

shall be released to any agency or person outside the department, except for private attorneys hired 

to represent the department, the office of the attorney general, the Board of Parole Hearings, the 

 

1

Plaintiff refers only to Requests 6-8, 12-15, and 17-25 in his motion.

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 53 Filed 03/25/13 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

27

28

3

Inspector General, and as provided by applicable federal and state law.”).

Request No. 6:

“Please produce the documents from CDCR relating to the use of color-coded bed cards in 

prison control booth tower/housing unit office’s depicting inmate’s race/ethnicity.”

Response:

“Objection. The request is overly broad, and vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms 

“the documents from CDCR,” “relating to the use of color-coded bed cards,” and “depicting 

inmate’s race/ethnicity.” In addition, the request calls for information that is not relevant or 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further object that the request 

is unduly burdensome in that it would cause them to incur substantial expense searching for 

documents that are irrelevant, or only marginally relevant, to the claims at issue in this case. 

Without waiving these objections, Defendants respond as follows:

Defendants are not aware of, and do not have in their possession, custody, or control, any 

documents responsive to this request.”

Analysis:

Plaintiff contends that the request is highly relevant because the classification of inmates by 

their “disruptive group” is the basis of Plaintiff’s claim. However, Defendants contend that they are 

not aware of any documents that pertain to Plaintiff’s request.

The requested documents would be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. However, Defendants cannot be compelled to produce documents of which 

they are unaware. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request for Production of 

Documents No. 6 is denied.2

Request No. 7:

“Please produce the documents dated between June 2009, through October 2010, instructing 

‘C’ facility officials/staff to place color-coded card(s) above each cell depicting an inmate’s 

race/ethnicity.”

 

2 All parties remain under the obligation to supplement their discovery responses if the responding party learns 

that a response was incomplete or incorrect, and such information has not been otherwise made known to the other party. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 53 Filed 03/25/13 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

27

28

4

Response:

“Objection. The request is vague and ambiguous with respect to the specific documents 

requested. In addition, the request calls for information that is not relevant or calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further object that the request is unduly 

burdensome in that it would cause them to incur substantial expense searching for documents that 

are irrelevant, or only marginally relevant, to the claims at issue in this case. Without waiving these 

objections, Defendants respond as follows:

Defendants are not aware of, and do not have in their possession, custody, or control, any 

documents responsive to this request.”

Analysis:

The requested documents would be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. However, Defendants cannot be compelled to produce documents of which 

they are unaware. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request for Production of

Documents No. 7 is denied.

Request No. 8:

“Please produce the documents from CDCR, SATF, and/or the California Correctional Peace 

Officer Association (CCPOA) authorizing, permitting correctional officer’s to have BAR-B-Q’s, pot 

luck’s, etc., during assigned work watches, duties.”

Response:

“Defendants object that this request is compound, and overly broad in time and scope. In 

addition, the request calls for information that is not relevant or calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. Defendants further object that the request is unduly burdensome in that it 

would cause them to incur substantial expense searching for documents that are irrelevant, or only 

marginally relevant, to the claims at issue in this case. Without waiving these objections, 

Defendants respond as follows:

Defendants are not aware of, and do not have in their possession, custody, or control, any 

documents responsive to this request.”

Analysis:

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 53 Filed 03/25/13 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

27

28

5

The requested documents would be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. However, Defendants cannot be compelled to produce documents of which 

they are unaware. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request for Production of 

Documents No. 8 is denied.

Request No. 12:

“Please produce the documents dated in or about June 2010, instructing ‘C’ facility officials 

to relocate/rehouse Northern Hispanic inmates from the lower yard (blocks 1-4) to the upper yard 

(blocks 5-8).”

Response:

“Defendants object on the grounds that the request seeks confidential information protected 

from disclosure by Title 15 of the California Code of regulations, §§ 3321(a) and 3450(d); California 

Government Code § 6254(c) and (f); California Penal Code §§ 832.7 and 6126.3; and California 

Evidence Code §§ 1040, 1043, and 1045; as well as the self-critical analysis privilege; the officialinformation privilege; and the deliberative-process privilege. Without waiving these objections, 

Defendants respond as follows:

After a diligent search, Defendants were unable to locate any relevant, non-privileged 

documents responsive to this request.”

Analysis:

The requested documents would be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. However, Defendants cannot be compelled to produce documents that they 

cannot locate after a diligent search. However, it is not clear from Defendants’ response whether 

they were unable to locate documents or they located documents, which they contend are privileged.

Thus, Defendants shall supplement their response to clarify this ambiguity and if documents are 

withheld based upon the assertion of a privilege they shall produce a privilege log. Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel further response to Request for Production of Documents No. 12 is Granted.

Request No. 13:

“Please produce the documents of the ‘incident report(s)’ for the incident of August 18, 2009, 

between Northern and Southern Hispanic inmates.

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 53 Filed 03/25/13 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

27

28

6

Please include the ‘incident report’ for each inmate and the ‘serious rule violation report(s)’ 

for each inmate, see pl.’s 602 log no. SATF-C-10-0234 (racial discrimination 602), p. 9-10 at ex. A 

attached.)”

Response:

“Defendants object on the grounds that the request seeks information pertaining to persons 

who are not parties to this action, and such information is protected by the privacy rights of those 

persons under federal and state law. Defendants object on the grounds that the request seeks 

confidential information protected from disclosure by Title 15 of the California Code of regulations, 

§§ 3321(a) and 3450(d); California Government Code § 6254(c) and (f); California Penal Code §§ 

832.7 and 6126.3; and California Evidence Code §§ 1040, 1043, and 1045; as well as the self-critical 

analysis privilege; the official-information privilege; and the deliberative-process privilege. Without 

waiving these objections, Defendants respond as follows:

Defendants will produce relevant, non-privileged portions of the incident report requested.”

Analysis:

Plaintiff contends that the Rules Violation Reports related to the incident are relevant to 

oppose Defendants’ likely argument that the modified program was in furtherance of legitimate 

penological concerns. Plaintiff contends that these incidents were orchestrated by prison officials to 

continue the modified programs.

The requested documents would be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. However, Defendants contend that the production of privileged documents 

would endanger the welfare of other inmates and prison staff, and “likely chill the flow of 

investigative information provided by witnesses, victims, and informants in the future.” Defendants 

request that if they are required to produce additional documents that they be permitted to redact the 

names and identification of individuals who are non-parties.

Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information. Kerr v. U.S. 

Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975). In determining what level of 

protection should be afforded by the official-information privilege, courts conduct a case by case 

balancing, in which the interests of the party seeking discovery are weighed against the interests of 

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 53 Filed 03/25/13 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

27

28

7

the governmental entity asserting the privilege. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 623 (N.D. 

Cal. 1995).

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response from Defendants is granted. The Court finds 

that the Rules Violation Reports concerning the inmates involved in this incident should be 

produced, as they are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Defendants are permitted to redact the names and identification of individuals who are non-parties.

Request No. 14:

“Please produce the documents of the ‘incident report(s)’ for the incident of October 16, 

2009, between Northern and Southern Hispanic inmates.*

*Please include the ‘incident report’ for each inmate and the ‘serious rule violation report(s)’ 

for each inmate (see Pl.’s 602 log no. SATF-C-10-02434 (racial discrimination 602), p. 9-10 at ex. A 

attached.)”

Response:

“Defendants object on the grounds that the request seeks information pertaining to persons 

who are not parties to this action, and such information is protected by the privacy rights of those 

persons under federal and state law. Defendants object on the grounds that the request seeks 

confidential information protected from disclosure by Title 15 of the California Code of regulations, 

§§ 3321(a) and 3450(d); California Government Code § 6254(c) and (f); California Penal Code §§ 

832.7 and 6126.3; and California Evidence Code §§ 1040, 1043, and 1045; as well as the self-critical 

analysis privilege; the official-information privilege; and the deliberative-process privilege. Without 

waiving these objections, Defendants respond as follows:

Defendants will produce relevant, non-privileged portions of the incident report requested.”

Analysis:

For the reasons set forth in Request No. 13, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response 

from Defendants is granted. The Court finds that the Rules Violation Reports concerning the 

inmates involved in this incident should be produced, as they are reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants are permitted to redact the names and identification 

of individuals who are non-parties.

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 53 Filed 03/25/13 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

27

28

8

Request No. 15:

“Please produce the documents of the ‘incident report(s)’ for the incident of November 14, 

2009, between Northern and Southern Hispanic inmates.*

*Please include the ‘incident report’ for each inmate and the ‘serious rule violation report(s)’ 

for each inmate (see Pl.’s 602 log no. SATF-C-10-02434 (racial discrimination 602), p. 9-10 at ex. A 

attached.)”

Response:

“Defendants object on the grounds that the request seeks information pertaining to persons 

who are not parties to this action, and such information is protected by the privacy rights of those 

persons under federal and state law. Defendants object on the grounds that the request seeks 

confidential information protected from disclosure by Title 15 of the California Code of regulations, 

§§ 3321(a) and 3450(d); California Government Code § 6254(c) and (f); California Penal Code §§ 

832.7 and 6126.3; and California Evidence Code §§ 1040, 1043, and 1045; as well as the self-critical 

analysis privilege; the official-information privilege; and the deliberative-process privilege. Without 

waiving these objections, Defendants respond as follows:

Defendants will produce relevant, non-privileged portions of the incident report requested.”

Analysis:

For the reasons set forth in Request No. 13, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response 

from Defendants is granted. The Court finds that the Rules Violation Reports concerning the 

inmates involved in this incident should be produced, as they are reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants are permitted to redact the names and identification 

of individuals who are non-parties.

Request No. 17:

Plaintiff has withdrawn his Request.

Request Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Plaintiff requests photographs of various areas in the prison.

Response:

“Defendants object that the request is vague and ambiguous. In addition to the extent that 

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 53 Filed 03/25/13 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

27

28

9

Plaintiff is asking Defendants to produce a photo not already in existence, this request is 

inappropriate. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require Defendants to conduct Plaintiff’s 

investigation for him. Without waiving these objections, Defendants respond as follows:

Defendants do not have in their possession, custody, or control any photos responsive to this 

request.”

Analysis:

Defendants are required to produce documents that are in their possession, custody, or 

control. However, Defendants are not required to produce documents that are not already in 

existence. Ascom Hasler Mailing Systems, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, 267 F.R.D. 1, 8 (D.D.C. 

2010); Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. H. Wolfe Iron and Metal Co., 576 F. Supp. 511, 512 (W.D. Pa. 1983). 

Absent a showing that these photographs already exist and are in Defendants’ possession, custody, 

or control, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request Nos. 18 through 25 is denied.

III. January 7, 2013 Motion to Compel

Plaintiff moves to compel further response to Request for Production No. 1 of Set Three.

Request:

“Please produce the document of CSATF/STATE PRISON C facility institutional policy 

regarding the concrete yard(s) are not used for general population inmates programming. (Please 

refer to defendant K. Clark response to interrogatory no. 5.”

Response:

Objection. The request is vague and ambiguous with respect to the ‘institutional policy’ at 

issue. In addition, the request assumes facts not in evidence; namely, that any such documents exist. 

Without waiving this objection, Defendants respond as follows:

From the time the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) opened in 1997, to 

present, Facility C’s concrete yards have not been used for exercise or any other program purposes 

with general population inmates. They have only been used for programming with the 

Administrative Segregation overflow inmates housed in Facility C’s Building 8. This practice has 

been observed consistently at SATF since 1997, but has not been codified in written policy. Thus, 

Defendants are not in possession of any responsive documents.

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 53 Filed 03/25/13 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

27

28

10

Analysis:

Defendants are required to produce documents that are in their possession, custody, or 

control. However, Defendants are not required to produce documents that are not already in 

existence. Plaintiff appears to believe that because Defendant Clark described an “institutional 

policy” of not programming the Facility C concrete yards for general population inmates in response 

to Interrogatory No. 5, that such policy was written. Defendants have maintained, however, that it 

was not written, merely observed. Plaintiff has provided no showing that such policy was ever 

written. It is very possible to have institutional policies that have not been codified in written form. 

Additionally, it is unclear why Plaintiff would need such policy in written form, as he already 

possesses Defendant Clark’s response to Plaintiff’s interrogatory. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion 

to compel, filed January 7, 2013 will be denied.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 19, 2012 motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part;

2. Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 12, 13, 14, and 15 of Set One is 

granted, as stated herein;

3. Defendants are required to produce further response to Requests Nos. 13 through 15, as 

stated herein, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order;

4. Plaintiff’s Requests For Production of Documents Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 17 through 25, Set 

One, are denied; and

5. Plaintiff’s January 7, 2013 motion to compel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 53 Filed 03/25/13 Page 10 of 10