Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248-25/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

Plaintiff Horace Bell is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

On April 27, 2015, and May 7, 2015, respectively, Plaintiff filed his fifth and sixth motions to 

compel. (ECF Nos. 95, 100.) Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to his request for production 

of documents, sets three and four. Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff‟s motions to compel on 

May 19, 2015. (ECF No. 108.) 

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

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 

HORACE THOMAS, a.k.a Horace Bell,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S HEBERLING, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTIONS 

TO COMPEL

[ECF Nos. 95, 100]

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 115 Filed 06/11/15 Page 1 of 5
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

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. 37, Discovery and Scheduling Order, &5. 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. CV-08-0472-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 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 for good cause, 

the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial 

if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 115 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 5
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

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 litigation; 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). 

B. Motion to Compel

1. Fifth Motion to Compel (ECF No. 95)

Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to his request for production of documents, sets three and 

four.

Plaintiff specifically moves to compel Defendants‟ responses to his request for production of 

documents set three, because “Defendants have failed to respond adequately and provided evasive and 

incomplete responses.” (ECF No. 95 at 1.) Plaintiff contends that he will be unduly prejudiced 

without each request. (Id. at 1-2.) 

In set three, Plaintiff‟s first and second requests for production seek Defendants‟ full personnel 

files and all formal and informal written complaints against them, without regard to subject matter and 

time. As stated in the Court‟s May 15, 2015, order denying Plaintiff‟ second motion to compel, 

“Plaintiff‟s request for the „personnel files of each‟ is overbroad and seeks information that would not 

be relevant to this action. (ECF No. 106, Order at 5.) Plaintiff does not provide any further argument 

in his fifth motion to compel as to why he now claims he is entitled to such documents. 

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 115 Filed 06/11/15 Page 3 of 5
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

In the third request for production contained in set three, Plaintiff seeks all policies and 

procedures regarding reprisals or retaliation for filing a lawsuit or inmate appeal. (ECF No. 95 at 10.) 

Defendants correctly responded that this request is identical to Plaintiff‟s third request, contained in 

his second set of requests for production. (Id.) In their previous response to Plaintiff‟s third request 

contained in the second set of requests for production, Defendants noted that Plaintiff is not 

proceeding on a claim that any defendant retaliated against him for filing lawsuits or prison appeals. 

(ECF No. 85 at 3-4.) Rather, this action is proceeding against Defendants S. Herberling, J. Sheer, and 

E. Nesmith for labeling Plaintiff as a snitch and ordering him to be attacked on the yard in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment. Thus, this request seeks documents not relevant to any claim or defense at 

issue in this lawsuit, and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Defendants submit that they nonetheless produced several responsive documents to Plaintiff. (ECF 

No. 108 at 3.) In this instant motion to compel, Plaintiff makes no attempt to explain how the 

documents requested are relevant to his claims or how the documents produced were inadequate. 

Without such a showing, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden demonstrating that Defendants‟ 

responses and objections to his discovery requests were inadequate or unjustified. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff‟s fifth motion to compel must be DENIED.

2. Sixth Motion to Compel (ECF No. 100)

In his sixth motion to compel, Plaintiff seeks further responses to his request for production of 

documents, set four. (ECF No. 100.) In requests one and three, Plaintiff sought policies and 

procedures on two-fiver gangs within SATF and CDCR. Plaintiff merely contends in conclusory 

fashion that the requested documents are relevant to his claim, but Plaintiff fails to explain how the 

documents sought in these requests are relevant to his claim that Defendants labeled him a snitch and 

ordered him to be attacked on the yard. In addition, Plaintiff does not address the fact that Defendants 

produced non-confidential documents responsive to three of his production requests, nor does he 

explain how the documents produced are inadequate. Plaintiff also fails to address Defendants‟ 

objections to his discovery requests, beyond merely concluding that the documents sought are not 

confidential. (ECF No. 100 at 1.) Plaintiff bears the burden of identifying which responses are in 

dispute and providing sufficient information so that the Court can discern why he is challenging the 

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 115 Filed 06/11/15 Page 4 of 5
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

response. It is insufficient for Plaintiff to merely attach discovery responses to his motion to compel 

and claim he is not satisfied and requests a further response. 

Plaintiff also seeks to compel Defendants to remove the video surveillance equipment from 

Facility D‟s yard at SATF and produce it to him. (ECF No. 100 at 2.) In response to Plaintiff‟s 

request, Defendants explained that, to the extent Plaintiff sought surveillance video footage, no such 

video exists, and therefore could not be produced. (Id. at 5.) Defendants also objected on various 

grounds to Plaintiff‟s request to produce the physical equipment itself. (Id.) Plaintiff fails to address 

Defendants‟ objections and merely concludes that the equipment can be removed and provided to him. 

As previously stated, burden of identifying which responses are in dispute and providing sufficient 

information so that the Court can discern why he is challenging the response. It is insufficient for 

Plaintiff to merely attach discovery responses to his motion to compel and claim he is not satisfied and 

requests a further response. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s sixth motion to compel must be DENIED.

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s fifth motion to compel, filed April 27, 2015, is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff‟s sixth motion to compel, filed May 7, 2015, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 115 Filed 06/11/15 Page 5 of 5