Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00573/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00573-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

15-CV-573-JLS(WVG) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

SHERIFF DEPUTY GONZALEZ, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 15-CV-573-JLS(WVG) 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE [ECF NO. 68] 

Currently pending before the Court is Keith Wayne Sekerke’s (“Plaintiff”) objection 

to Sheriff Deputy Gonzalez’s (“Defendant”) document subpoena. (ECF No. 68.) Having 

considered the briefing submitted by the parties and reviewed all of the supporting exhibits, 

the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections for the reasons set forth below. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his 

Complaint alleging Defendant “maliciously and sadistically strangle[d]” Plaintiff and 

“crashed his knee into [Plaintiff’s] jaw” following a court hearing in the San Diego 

Superior Court. (Compl. at 3, ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional 

rights under § 1983 and seeks to hold Defendant responsible for causing him bruising and 

pain. 

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 73 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

15-CV-573-JLS(WVG) 

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

The Court’s Scheduling Order, issued on May 19, 2016, set discovery to be 

completed by October 12, 2016. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff requested discovery be extended 

on December 5, 2016. (ECF No. 61.) On January 13, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiff’s 

request, setting discovery to close by April 13, 2017. (ECF No. 62.) 

 On February 7, 2017, Defendant served discovery demands upon Plaintiff. Plaintiff 

responded by submitting responses to the Court, which were rejected on March 9, 2017. 

(ECF No. 65.) The Clerk of Court mailed Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant on the same 

day. Plaintiff objected to several demands, refused to disclose his prior criminal record, 

and denied prior assaultive conduct toward prison guards. (ECF. No. 65-1.) On February 

14, 2017, Defendant served a subpoena on Kern Valley State Prison for Plaintiff’s records, 

requesting “All non-medical documents regarding Keith Wayne Sekerke, including, but 

not limited to, all documents in Sekerke’s ‘C-file,’ disciplinary records, incident reports, 

booking records, prison files, and classification records.” (ECF No. 70, Ex. A.) Defendant 

sent a Notice of Privacy Rights to Plaintiff on the same day. (ECF No. 70, Ex. B.) Kern 

Valley State Prison produced its records to Defendant on March 10, 2017. (ECF No. 70, 

Ex. C.) Filed nunc pro tunc on March 13, 2017, Plaintiff objected to the subpoena for his 

prison records arguing that “there’s nothing in any prison records that are relevant to my 

complaint against defendants.” (ECF No. 68 at 1.) Defendant replied to Plaintiff’s 

objection on March 21, 2017. (ECF No. 70.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may 

obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim 

or defense.” After the 2015 Amendments to Rule 26, discovery no longer need be 

admissible, but it still must be relevant to a party’s claim or defense. See In re Bard IVC 

Filters Prods. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562, 563-64 (D. Ariz. Sept. 16, 2016). Moreover, 

“[d]espite the recent amendments to Rule 26, discovery relevance remains a broad concept” 

that is to be construed liberally. Federal Nat’l Mortg. Assoc. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, 

LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23925, 2016 WL 778368, at *2 n.16 (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 2016) 

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 73 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

15-CV-573-JLS(WVG) 

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

(overruling objections to magistrate judge order); see also Haghayeghi v. Guess?, Inc., 168 

F. Supp. 3d 1277, 1280 (S.D. Cal. 2016). “[D]iscovery is not limited to issues raised by 

the pleadings, for discovery itself is designed to help define and clarify the issues.” 

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). 

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of FRCP 

26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). However, the court must limit the extent of discovery if it 

determines that the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by FRCP 26(b)(1). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Moreover, “[a] court can limit discovery if it determines, 

among other things, that the discovery is: (1) unreasonably cumulative or duplicative; (2) 

obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less 

expensive; or (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit.” Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 285 F.R.D. 566, 571 (C.D. Cal. 2012). 

III. DISCUSSION 

 Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer following his discovery 

concern, in violation of the Local Rules and this Court’s Chambers Rules. (ECF No. 70 at 

3.) The Court understands the need for the parties to meet and confer, but in this case 

Plaintiff faces significant obstacles as a prisoner with little means to contact and 

communicate with opposing counsel. Accordingly, the Court, exercising its discretion, 

waives the meet and confer requirement in this instance. 

 Defendant next claims that Plaintiff’s prison file is relevant for its criminal history 

contents, which Plaintiff has refused to disclose in discovery interrogatories. (ECF No. 40 

at 4.) Defendant states that Plaintiff’s file would also support Defendant’s actions in 

securing Plaintiff to a chair for his hearing, and would support the reasonableness of the 

use of force when Plaintiff failed to comply with demands to behave. Id. In his objection, 

Plaintiff argues that “[he] should be protected by privacy laws” and that “[l]ots of the 

material in [his] prison C-files are confidential.” (ECF No. 68 at 2.) 

The Court with Defendant agrees that Plaintiff’s prison records are properly subject 

to discovery. The Court does not find the subpoena documents to be unreasonable or 

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 73 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

15-CV-573-JLS(WVG) 

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

burdensome. Plaintiff’s C-file contains his criminal history, disciplinary records, and 

history of staff assaults. This information may be relevant to the claims or defenses in this 

case, and Defendant is unable to obtain any of this information from Plaintiff. Defendant 

served Plaintiff with Interrogatories and Admissions on February 7, 2017. (ECF No. 70 at 

6.) In those interrogatories, Defendants requested Plaintiff “[l]ist all criminal convictions 

YOU have received in YOUR lifetime, including the offense, date of sentence, and 

punishment awarded.” (ECF No. 70 at 7, ECF No. 65-1.) In response to the interrogatory, 

Plaintiff stated: “Not relevant to claim. Unable to provide it.” Id. However, under Federal 

Rule of Evidence 609, criminal convictions may, under the proper circumstances, be used 

to impeach a witness. Thus, Plaintiff’s criminal history may be relevant in the event he 

provides testimony. Moreover, a history of prior staff assault may be relevant to Plaintiff’s 

credibility as a witness and may be used to impeach him given, as Defendant represents, 

Plaintiff claims he has never struck a law enforcement officer. 

Because Defendant explains how the requested information is relevant, the subject 

documents do not exceed the limits of what a party may seek via discovery. See Lofton v. 

Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, 308 F.R.D. 276, 280 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“The question of 

relevancy should be construed liberally and with common sense and discovery should be 

allowed unless the information sought has no conceivable bearing on the case.”). With 

respect to Plaintiff’s privacy concerns, the Court finds the proper method to address his 

concerns is issuance of a Protective Order, not a prohibition of discovery. 

Protective Order 

 Given the nature of the documents in Plaintiff’s C-file and Plaintiff’s resulting 

privacy concerns, the Court hereby enters a Protective Order over all documents produced 

in response to the subject subpoena. Accordingly, Defendant’s handling of all such 

documents shall be governed by the following restrictions: 

 1. All documents shall be deemed “attorney’s eyes only” and may be handled 

only by the attorneys of record in this case (currently Morris G. Hill and Ronald Lenert) 

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 73 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

15-CV-573-JLS(WVG) 

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

and their staff who personally file documents which include the subject documents as 

exhibits (but only during the process of making such a filing on the case docket); 

 2. Mssrs. Hill and Lenert may disclose the subject documents to third parties, 

such as expert witnesses, but only upon seeking leave of Court and after an Order of this 

Court; 

3. Any subject document that is filed as an exhibit to a court filing shall be filed 

under seal; 

 3. Within 10 calendar days of the termination of this case, the attorneys of record 

shall jointly file a declaration on the record stating that all subject documents have been 

destroyed; 

 4. Sanctions may issue for noncompliance with the above terms.

IV. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections to 

Defendant’s subpoena and enters a Protective Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 7, 2017 

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 73 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5