Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01174/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01174-6/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

JOSE J. PULIDO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M. LUNES, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG-PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF Nos. 42, 43.)

ORDER FOR PARTIES TO EXCHANGE 

INITIAL DISCLOSURES WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jose J. Pulido (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on 

the original Complaint filed by Plaintiff on July 28, 2014, against defendants Sergeant M. 

Lunes, Correctional Officer Cruz, and Correctional Officer Shaw on Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk to Plaintiff’s 

safety. (ECF No. 1.)

On April 29, 2016, after Defendants filed Answers to the Complaint, the Court issued 

an Order Requiring Initial Disclosures and Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference (“Court’s 

Order”). (ECF No. 41.) The Order requires the parties to provide initial disclosures, including 

names of witnesses and production of documents. 

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 45 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 6
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

On May 12, 2016, defendants Cruz and Shaw filed objections to the Court’s Order. 

(ECF No. 42.) On May 12, 2016, defendant Lunes joined the objections. (ECF No. 43.) In the 

objections, Defendants request that the Court vacate the initial disclosure requirement of the 

Court’s Order. The Court construes Defendants’ objections as a motion for reconsideration of 

the initial disclosure requirement of the Court’s Order.

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendants argue that the Court’s Order requires the parties to engage in initial 

disclosures of discovery similar to those required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(a)(1). Defendants note that because Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner, there is an exemption from 

the initial disclosure requirements.

1

 Thus, Defendants claim that the Court’s ruling disregards 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by imposing a requirement where it is subject to an 

exemption.

The Advisory Committee Notes published alongside the Federal Rules provide 

otherwise. In the notes to the 2000 amendments, the Advisory Committee Notes provide “even 

in a case excluded from initial disclosure under subdivision (a)(1)(E) . . . the court can order 

exchange of similar information in managing the action under Rule 16.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(1) Advisory Committee Note of 2000. Moreover, Rule 16 provides that “[i]n any action, 

the court may order the attorneys and any unrepresented parties to appear for one or more 

pretrial conferences for such purposes as: . . . establishing early and continuing control so that 

the case will not be protracted because of lack of management . . . discouraging wasteful 

pretrial activities; [and] improving the quality of the trial through more thorough preparation . . 

. .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a). Rule 16 also permits the Court to issue a scheduling order to 

“modify the extent of discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)(i). Furthermore, Rule 16

provides that matters for consideration at any pretrial conference may include “controlling and 

scheduling discovery, including orders affecting disclosures and discovery under Rule 26 and 

 

1 Rule 26(a)(1)(B)(iv) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “an action brought 

without an attorney by a person in the custody of the United States, a state, or a state subdivision” is exempt from 

initial disclosure of discovery.

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 45 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 6
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

Rules 29 through 37,” and “facilitating in other ways the just, speedy, and inexpensive 

disposition of the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(F), (P). See also, Chambers v. NASCO, 

Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, reh’g denied, 501 U.S. 1269 (1991) (district courts have an inherent 

power “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of 

cases.”); Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High School Dist., 768 F.3d 843, 862 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A 

district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.”) (internal citation omitted).

A similar order was upheld by the District Court in Irvin van Buren v. Emerson, 1:13-

cv-01273-LJO-DLB, ECF No. 33, December 2, 2014. In that case, the Court had issued an 

initial Discovery and Scheduling Order in a prisoner case similarly requiring initial disclosures, 

including names of witnesses and production of documents. In upholding the disclosure 

requirement, Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill, who is now Chief Judge of this District, explained:

The Court further notes that the discovery order at issue, which has been used 

and upheld in other actions in this Court, was implemented in light of the 

numerous discovery issues that were arising with increasing frequency in other 

pro se prisoner cases. Defendants’ discovery practices were bordering on 

unnecessarily obstructive, and these tactics caused numerous discovery disputes 

that required extensive Court resources to resolve. The intent of the order, as 

explained above, is to discourage similar wasteful activities. 

Defendant further believes that such requirements are an undue burden on the 

State in prisoner cases. However, again, the intent behind the order is to 

streamline the discovery process and ultimately reduce the overall burden on the 

State, the Court and the parties. In fact, since the requirement to exchange 

initial disclosures has been in place, there has been a significant decrease in 

discovery disputes in actions where the ordered [sic] has issued. This decrease 

has benefited both the parties and the Court.

1:13-cv-01273-LJO-DLB, ECF No. 33, at p.3. 

Defendants argue that the scope of disclosures required by the Court’s Order is broader 

than what is permitted by the Federal Rules because it requires Defendants to produce “copies 

of all documents and other materials . . . related to the claims and defenses in this case.” (ECF 

No. 41 at 2 (emphasis added)). Defendants assert that by contrast, the initial disclosure rule, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii), orders parties to “provide . . . a copy . . . of all documents . . . 

.[it] may use to support its claims or defenses . . . .” (emphasis added.) Defendants contend

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 45 Filed 05/20/16 Page 3 of 6
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

that this distinction causes an undue burden on Defendants and their counsel by inappropriately 

forcing them to develop Plaintiff’s claim for him, likely encompasses privileged and 

confidential material, and requires defense counsel to spend time and resources sifting through 

documents that are equally available to Plaintiff. 

This difference in language does not invalidate the Court’s order. The purpose of initial 

disclosures under Rule 26(a) is “to accelerate the exchange of basic information . . . and to 

eliminate the paper work involved in requesting such information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) 

Advisory Committee Note of 1993 (emphasis added). The difference in language cited by 

Defendants does not alter that intent. There is no material difference between documents 

related to claims and defenses and those that may be used in a claim and defense. This is 

especially true in the context of prisoner litigation, where the documents at issue are contained 

in common files associated with an inmate. Indeed, the prison often conducts its own 

evaluation of conduct in an organized and discrete manner based on an underlying grievance by 

the prisoner. Those types of documents are enumerated in the Court’s order and include 

“grievances, responses, and appeals thereof,” and “reports of completed investigations by 

CDCR or others.” Thus, while being theoretically vague, its application to documents in this 

context should be clear. Moreover, in the context of prisoner litigation, Defendants are often 

the party with possession, custody, and control over documents related to the underlying

incident. The wording of the Court’s order, to the extent it applies to documents regarding 

Plaintiff’s claim in addition to Defendant’s defense, encompasses all documents related to the 

incident even if not directly supportive of a defense. Such a change is rationally suited to the 

prisoner context.

Defendants next object to the extent that the Court’s order may include privileged 

documents. The Court’s order permits withholding of such documents on the basis of 

confidentiality or privilege, provided that Defendants describe what is being withheld and on 

what legal basis. Defendants argue that in theory they could run the risk of inadvertently 

waiving the privilege by failing to include a privileged document that conceivably could relate 

to a claim or defense. But Defendants should have no such concern in light of the law that 

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 45 Filed 05/20/16 Page 4 of 6
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

waiver of the privilege must be knowing and voluntary. U.S. v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 566 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (voluntary disclosure of privileged communications constitutes waiver of the 

privilege for all other communications on the same subject). So long as Defendants do not 

intentionally withhold privileged documents subject to the order, no claim of waiver would 

attach. 

Defendants next claim that they should not be required to identify documents more 

available to Plaintiff, focusing on the words “with particularity.” For the sake of clarity, 

describing documents in the possession of Plaintiff such as “Plaintiff’s C-file” is sufficient 

disclosure. It is not necessary for Defendants to opine on which such documents are related to 

this claim—it is only necessary for Defendants to describe the universe of materials that 

Plaintiff already has and thus are not being produced by Defendants.

The Court thus declines to reconsider its order. At the scheduling conference, the Court 

is willing to discuss any outstanding questions or issues regarding the precise contours of its 

order. But the Court’s intent should be clear: the universe of documents that refer to the 

incident underlying Plaintiff’s complaint is very likely relatively small, already known, and 

easily located by Defendants. Defendants (as well as Plaintiff) need to produce such 

documents, or assert claims of privilege, in the timeline provided by the order. Such disclosure 

will streamline the case and allow resolution of the issues in a timely manner, saving time and 

expense for all parties and the Court. Especially given the volume of prisoner litigation cases 

in this District, the Court’s order comports with the Court’s obligation to manage such cases in 

a way that reaches a fair and just resolution in a timely manner. 

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 45 Filed 05/20/16 Page 5 of 6
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

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, filed on May 12, 2016, is DENIED; and

2. The parties SHALL exchange initial disclosures within thirty (30) days of the 

date of service of this order, pursuant to the Court’s Order of April 29, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 45 Filed 05/20/16 Page 6 of 6