Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00133/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00133-14/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

ANTOINE L. ARDDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENNETH MARTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-0133 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, with an action 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s fully briefed motion to compel discovery is before 

the court. As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that between August and November of 2019, defendants Kieu, Lundgren, 

and Bogacs (now known as Levin), who served on the IDTT committee, were deliberately 

indifferent to plaintiff’s serious mental health needs and failed to protect him in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment.1 (ECF No. 48.)

////

1

 On November 21, 2022, those portions of the amended plaintiff that did not comply with the 

district court’s July 19, 2022 order were stricken. (ECF No. 49 at 1.) Plaintiff’s prior claims 

against other defendants, including Eighth Amendment, retaliation, and state law claims were 

dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust. (ECF Nos. 43, 47.) 

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 67 Filed 11/28/23 Page 1 of 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

2

Background

On May 22, 2023, the undersigned issued a discovery and scheduling order that provides 

that any motion to compel discovery shall be filed by September 28, 2023. (ECF No. 59 at 5.) 

On October 8, 2023, under the mailbox rule, plaintiff filed his motion to compel 

discovery.2 (ECF No. 64.) Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the production of the CDCR 

training manual, Dr. Michael Golding’s “Whistle Blower Report,” and the summary of CHCFAdministrator’s systemwide problems caused by “unstaffing,” as well as sanctions based on the 

alleged failure to provide such documents. (ECF No. 64 at 1, 2.) 

Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds it was untimely filed, without explanation, 

and, in any event, plaintiff’s motion should be denied on the merits because he now seeks 

different documents from what was previously sought, and plaintiff failed to identify which 

specific request for which he seeks to compel further responses. Defendants argue that plaintiff’s 

request for sanctions is therefore unwarranted. Instead, defendants ask that plaintiff be ordered to 

pay defendants’ reasonable costs in opposing the motion because plaintiff made statements that 

are provably false yet he signed the motion under penalty of perjury. 

In reply, plaintiff concedes his motion may be “a little bit late,” due to limited access to 

the law library and legal supplies and denies making any false statement about his conversation 

with opposing counsel in September of 2023. (ECF No. 66 at 1.) Plaintiff states he suffers from 

a mental disability and may have gotten his dates mixed up. Plaintiff claims he would be willing 

to testify under oath as to what counsel told plaintiff off the record at plaintiff’s deposition. (ECF 

No. 66 at 2.) 

Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Also, plaintiff failed to provide a copy of the discovery 

requests and responses plaintiff intended to challenge. The court is unable to evaluate plaintiff’s 

motion without the discovery requests and responses, and without plaintiff specifically

2

 Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988) (pro se prisoner filing is dated from the date 

prisoner delivers it to prison authorities). Plaintiff’s motion was received by the court on October 

16, 2023, and entered on the docket on October 20, 2023. (ECF No. 64.) 

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 67 Filed 11/28/23 Page 2 of 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

3

identifying which discovery response is at issue. Indeed, as argued by defendants, some of the 

items plaintiff seeks to compel were not included in the request for production of documents 

propounded to defendants. 

Moreover, contrary to plaintiff’s verified claim that defendants failed to timely respond to 

the discovery requests, defendants timely filed objections to plaintiff’s request for production of 

documents on July 17, 2023. (ECF No. 65-1 at 12-17.) Defendants also provided a copy of 

counsel’s letter to plaintiff, dated and served on July 17, 2023, informing plaintiff that the second 

page of the discovery request was missing, and stating that if plaintiff mailed the complete 

document to counsel, an appropriate response would be provided. (ECF No. 65-1 at 19.) 

Further, defendants provided a declaration by the mailroom supervisor at Salinas Valley State 

Prison, S. Benavides, who provided a copy of plaintiff’s mail log confirming that plaintiff did not 

send counsel the missing page two. (ECF No. 65-2.) 

Finally, whether counsel discussed the discovery requests with plaintiff at his deposition 

in September of 2023 is not relevant because by that time, the deadline for propounding discovery 

requests had expired (on July 31, 2023) and plaintiff had not timely rectified the failure to provide 

page two of his request or otherwise challenged the objections served on July 17, 2023. Plaintiff 

also did not seek an extension of the discovery deadline. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (showing of good cause and diligence required to modify 

scheduling orders).

For the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses is denied, 

and his motion for sanctions is also denied.

Defendants’ Request for Expenses

Defendants seek reimbursement for the costs of opposing plaintiff’s unjustified motion, in 

the amount of $1,100.00. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B).3 Defendants highlight plaintiff’s false 

3

 “If the motion is denied, the court may issue any protective order authorized under Rule 26(c) 

and must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the movant, the attorney filing the 

motion, or both to pay the party or deponent who opposed the motion its reasonable expenses 

incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees. But the court must not order this 

payment if the motion was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of 

expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37)(a)(5)(B).

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 67 Filed 11/28/23 Page 3 of 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

4

statement made under penalty of perjury: that defendants “waived their objections by their failure 

to respond timely to the request.” (ECF No. 64 at 4.) Plaintiff does not specifically address this 

false statement, replying only that he made no false statement about his conversation with counsel 

in September, and that he suffers from a mental disability and “may have gotten his dates mixed 

up.” (ECF No. 66 at 2.) Further, “getting the date wrong” does not rebut defendants’ evidence 

that they timely objected to the request for production. Plaintiff does not otherwise address 

defendants’ request that because plaintiff’s motion was not substantially justified, the court 

should order plaintiff to pay defendants’ reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion in 

the amount of $1,110.00. Therefore, plaintiff shall address, within thirty days, why plaintiff 

should not be ordered to pay defendants’ reasonable expenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 64) is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to impose sanctions on defendants is denied; and

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition to 

defendants’ request for reasonable expenses in the amount of $1,100.00.

Dated: November 28, 2023

/ardd0133.mtc

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 67 Filed 11/28/23 Page 4 of 4