Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461-40/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

ADAM JAY STONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-01461-KES-SAB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL, FILED ON 

JANUARY 22, 2024

(ECF No. 136)

Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed January 22, 2024. (ECF 

No. 136.) 

I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendants B. 

Gonzales, G. Morales, K. Gonzales, and Anderson in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on October 19, 2022. (ECF No. 48.) 

On November 22, 2022, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 

59.) 

///

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 156 Filed 04/23/24 Page 1 of 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

2

On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 90.) 

On June 5, 2023, Defendant Anderson filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to 

exhaust the administrative remedies. (ECF No. 91.) 

On June 6, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery and to modify the 

scheduling order. (ECF No. 92.) 

On June 7, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to stay and reset the pending 

deadlines until a final ruling on Defendant Anderson’s exhaustion motion for summary judgment, 

which included briefing on Plaintiff’s pending motion to compel. (ECF No. 93.) 

On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed two separate motions to compel discovery. (ECF Nos. 

98, 99.) 

On September 11, 2023, Findings and Recommendations were issued to deny Defendant 

Anderson’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 114.) 

On September 27, 2023, the Court set this case for a settlement conference at Corcoran 

State Prison on November 6, 2023, but the case did not settle. (ECF Nos. 117, 123.) 

On October 25, 2023, Defendant Anderson’s exhaustion motion for summary judgment 

was denied. (ECF No. 122.) 

On November 8, 2023, the Court lifted the stay of discovery, directed Defendants to file a 

response to Plaintiff’s pending motions to compel within thirty days, and extended the discovery 

and dispositive motion filing deadlines. (ECF No. 125.) 

On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed another motion to compel. (ECF No. 132.) On 

February 28, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition to this motion to compel. (ECF No. 145.) 

Plaintiff filed a reply on March 11, 2024, along with a separate motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 

147.) 

After receiving an extension of time, Defendants filed oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions to 

compel on January 12, 2024 and January 16, 2024, respectively. (ECF Nos. 133, 134, 135.) 

On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed yet another motion to compel. (ECF No. 136.) 

On February 12, 2024, Defendants filed a reply to the motion to compel. (ECF No. 142.) 

Plaintiff filed a reply on February 23, 2024. (ECF No. 144.) 

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 156 Filed 04/23/24 Page 2 of 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

3

On February 16, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to modify the 

scheduling order attached as an exhibit to a reply to Defendants’ opposition to his June 2, 2023 

motion to compel (ECF No. 90). (ECF Nos. 139, 143.) Plaintiff filed a reply on March 1, 2024. 

(ECF No. 146.) 

On April 11, 2024, Defendants filed a timely opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to sanctions. 

(ECF No. 151.) Plaintiff filed a reply on April 15, 2024. (ECF No. 152) 

II.

LEGAL STANDRD

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of 

confinement. As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would 

otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to 

involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 59. Further, where otherwise discoverable 

information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or infringe upon a 

protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in determining 

whether disclosure should occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 

U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (privacy rights or interests implicit in broad purpose and language of 

Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of 

Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing assertion of privilege); Soto v. City of 

Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a constitutionally-based right of 

privacy that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB 

PC, 2012 WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting inmate’s entitlement to 

inspect discoverable information may be accommodated in ways which mitigate institutional 

safety concerns); Robinson v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 912746, at 

*2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012) (issuing protective order regarding documents containing 

information which implicated the safety and security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. CV08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for 

protective order and for redaction of information asserted to risk jeopardizing safety and security 

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 156 Filed 04/23/24 Page 3 of 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

4

of inmates or the institution if released); Womack v. Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 

2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (requiring defendants to submit withheld 

documents for in camera review or move for a protective order). 

However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The 

discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of 

discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 

1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Parties may obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the 

action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ 

resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to 

compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. 

Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); 

Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, 

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL

860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the moving party to inform the Court 

which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed 

response, why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party’s objections are 

not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 

2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4. However, the Court is vested with 

broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to 

leniency as a pro se litigant; therefore, to the extent possible, the Court endeavors to resolve his 

motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); 

Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. 

Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 

///

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 156 Filed 04/23/24 Page 4 of 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

5

III.

DISCUSSION

In the current motion to compel, Plaintiff seeks further responses to his request for 

production number 12 and interrogatories numbers 16-21. (ECF No. 136.) 

A. Request for Production No. 12

In request for production no. 12, Plaintiff requested:

Provide a Photo Identification, including by not limited to CDCR Identification card

for the Correctional Officers working second watch on 5/11/2020, including by not 

limited to Avila, J.A, Wesir, A.J, sargent [sic], S.D. Lovett Jr, S.L, Escobedo, V., 

Villagomez, G., Urrutia, C., Perez, J.L, Vargas, C.O, Sparks, B.A., Anderson, J.S, Castro 

Jr, L., and Ornelas. If there was a Castillo on duty then provide photo identification for 

him as well. If there is no CDCR Identification then provide driver’s license identification 

or some other state identification. The only information that needs to be provided is the 

name and the photo. Any other information may be omitted or redacted. The purpose it to 

identify the John Does and the officers working in the medical facility. This is specific 

information, this is not privileged information, and is directed to Defendant Anderson. 

However, if you claim privilege information then provide a privilege log and Kelly 

declaration (Kelly v. City of San Jose 114 FRD 653, 699 (N.D. Cal. 1987) as to why 

names and photo identification is privileged information. Anderson has easy Access to 

this information.

(ECF No. 142-1 at 5.) 

Defendant Anderson responded as follows:

Answering Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 12 on the following

grounds: (1) the request is vague and ambiguous as to the term “Correctional Officers 

working second watch,” “identification card,” “photo identification,” “some other state

identification,” and “officers working in medical facility,” requiring Answering Defendant

to guess the intended meaning and identify of the officers targeted by this request; (2) the

request is impermissibly compound; (3) the request seeks documents that are not relevant 

to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case as this request 

seeks photos and names of non-party Correctional Officers, which is beyond the scope of

permissible discovery; (4) the request invades the privacy rights of Answering Defendant 

as well as third-parties in peace officer personnel, medical, and similar records protected 

by state and federal privileges and California statutes; and (5) the request seeks documents 

and things not within Answering Defendant’s personal possession, custody, or control.

Subject to, and without waiving the objections, and narrowing the request as seeking

the names of Correctional Officers working in Facility A at Kern Valley State Prison on

May 11, 2020, Answering Defendant responds as follows: See the previously served copy

of the sign-in sheet for May 11, 2020 (AGO 029 – AGO 032.).

(ECF No. 142-1, Sanchez Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) 

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 156 Filed 04/23/24 Page 5 of 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

6

In his motion to compel, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s response is non-responsive 

and evasive. (ECF No. 136 at 2.) 

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s request is irrelevant (can’t amend to add claim against Doe 

Defendants), they have complied with the less intrusive means of obtaining the information, and 

Anderson does not have possession, custody, or control of the non-party officer’s identification 

cards. (ECF No. 142 at 5-7.) 

In his reply to Defendants’ opposition, Plaintiff contends that a sign in sheet is not the 

same as photo identification, and “Plaintiff has already made it clear that he does not know the 

names of the John Does that were beating on him under Anderson’s orders.” (ECF No. 144 at 2.) 

Plaintiff submits that he needs photo identification because he could not identify the John Does 

by a sign-in sheet with 45 other names on [it].” (ECF No. 144 at 8.) 

Ruling: Defendant’s objection is sustained and Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be 

denied, without prejudice. Plaintiff is not entitled to the photograph of every individual named in 

the sign-in sheet and Plaintiff must provide more detail as to the proposed Doe Defendants. For 

example, Plaintiff shall provide any identifying physical features and describe the specific actions 

taken by the Doe Defendants in order to determine if a person matches Plaintiff’s description. 

Without specific identification information, Plaintiff would not be able to identify and match the 

individuals names with their pictures. By way of separate order, the Court has granted Plaintiff’s 

request to extend the discovery deadline to ascertain the identity of the Doe Defendants. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied, without prejudice. 

B. Interrogatories Nos. 16-21

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to his Interrogatories Nos. 16-21. 

Defendants submit that Plaintiff never served the interrogatories to Defendants in 

accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, but included the “interrogatories” in the 

body of a nine-page meet and confer letter. However, Defendants state that after reviewing 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel, they realized he intended for Defendants to construe his November 

21, 2024 letter as discovery requests, and responses were produced on February 9, 2024. (ECF 

No. 142-1, Sanchez Decl. ¶ 10 & Exs. F-J.)

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 156 Filed 04/23/24 Page 6 of 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

7

In his reply to Defendants’ opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendants provided 

“unreasonable, evasive, and boilerplate responses to interrogatories 16-21 and the Defendants 

were 41 days past the deadline.” (ECF No. 144 at 1.) 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be denied. A review of the evidence submitted 

by the parties demonstrates that Plaintiff did not properly serve interrogatories numbers 16-21 on 

Defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. Rather, Plaintiff listed 

interrogatories numbers 16-21 halfway through his November 2023 meet and confer letter which 

is improper service. See, e.g., Neerman v. Cates, et al., No. CV 22-2751 PA (PVCX), 2023 WL 

8884367, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2023) (denying a motion to compel where a pro se party 

“combined interrogatories and requests for production of documents into a single document with 

130 discovery requests . . . This is improper, as interrogatories and requests for production of 

documents . . . may not be combined in a hybrid discovery request.”); Henderson v. Felker, No. 

CIV S-06-1325 FCD, 2011 WL 2516190, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2011) (“Defendants objected 

to this request because it was improperly requested in plaintiff’s request for production of 

documents, in interrogatory form. Id. Defendants’ objection is well-taken and plaintiff offers no 

argument as to why this objection was unjustified. The court finds that defendants were not 

obligated to respond to this request.”). Here, it is clear that Plaintiff knows how to correctly serve 

interrogatories, considering he has previously sent Defendants letters and attached proper 

discovery requests. (Sanchez Decl., ¶ 8.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to 

these interrogatories is moot as Defendants have provided responses to these requests and 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any prejudice thereby. (ECF No. 142, Sanchez Decl. ¶ 10, Exs. GJ.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is denied. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 156 Filed 04/23/24 Page 7 of 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

8

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF 

No. 136) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 156 Filed 04/23/24 Page 8 of 8