Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01216/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01216-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. QUINONEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-1216-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

(ECF NO. 22)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 9.) The action 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants 

Quinonez and Lozano. (ECF Nos. 9 & 10.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s April 24, 2015 motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 

22.) Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff filed no reply. The matter is 

deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith. Asea, 

Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981). Parties may obtain 

discovery regarding any non-privileged 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 

Case 1:14-cv-01216-LJO-MJS Document 24 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 12
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

the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information 

need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead 

to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

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. E.g., 

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

13, 2012); 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 v. Virga, No. 

CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P., 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011).

The court must limit discovery if the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs 

its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). “In each instance, the determination 

whether . . . information is discoverable because it is relevant to the claims or defenses 

depends on the circumstances of the pending action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory 

Committee’s note (2000 Amendment) (Gap Report) (Subdivision (b)(1)).

III. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

Plaintiff’s claims, which arose when he was incarcerated at Wasco State Prison, 

may be summarized essentially as follows:

On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff was assaulted by his cellmate Carlos Richee. On 

March 8, 2013, prison officials formally documented Plaintiff and Richee as enemies. On 

April 2, 2013, Plaintiff told Defendants Quinonez and Lozano, both correctional officers, 

that he and Richee had fought previously and he feared for his safety. Defendants 

Case 1:14-cv-01216-LJO-MJS Document 24 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 12
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

made no effort to prevent an altercation. Defendant Quinonez had been present when 

Plaintiff was attacked on February 19 and allegedly informed Lozano of the incident. 

Defendant Lozano told Plaintiff that “if anything happen, do what you have to do and you 

won’t get in any trouble.”

Plaintiff was assaulted by Richee approximately twenty minutes later. Plaintiff 

suffered injuries to his face and shoulder. Plaintiff asserts the Defendants failed to 

protect him from a substantial risk of harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ responses to Interrogatories 1-5, and Request 

for Production 11are deficient and requests that Defendants provide further responses.

Defendants argue that their objections were proper. (ECF No. 23.) The Court addresses 

each of the discovery requests in turn.

1. Interrogatory No. 1 

a. Request:

Had inmate Richee AM8781 been disciplined or involved in 

any other fight-related disturbances prior to April 2, 2013?

b. Response

Objection: This request is compound, vague as to time, and it 

calls for a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects on the 

grounds that it is vague and ambiguous because it does not 

specify the term [sic] “disciplined” or “involved” or “any other 

fight-related disturbances.” Defendant further objects 

because it is overbroad as to time, nor [sic] does it specify a 

time period other than “prior to April 2, 2013.” Defendant 

further objects that this request seeks information not 

relevant to any claim or defense at issue in this lawsuit, and 

is thus not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Defendant 

further objects because this interrogatory seeks confidential

and private information pertaining to another inmate, the 

disclosure of which would create a hazard to the safety and 

security of the institution and violates the inmates’ rights to 

 

1

Both the interrogatories themselves and the Defendants’ responses to them are identical as to each 

Defendant. (ECF No. 22.)

Case 1:14-cv-01216-LJO-MJS Document 24 Filed 06/10/15 Page 3 of 12
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

privacy and confidentially [sic]. Defendant further objects 

because this interrogatory seeks information not in the 

possession, custody or control of the defendant. Without 

waiving any objections, Defendant responds as follows: Not 

to my knowledge.

c. Analysis

Defendant’s objections are sustained in part and overruled in part. Defendants will 

be required to answer subject to the limitations described below.

The request is not vague, ambiguous, or compound, and does not call for a legal 

conclusion. Giving it a fair and reasonable reading in light of the facts of this case, it 

simply asks whether the named individual has been disciplined for fighting2or been 

involved in any fight-related incidents to Defendants’ knowledge. The response could 

have great relevancy to whether Defendants knew Richee was a threat prior to the April 

2, 2013 assault on Plaintiff (ECF No. 9, at 8.) Information revealing prior documented 

violent behavior and/or fights with other inmates could support Plaintiff’s claims. See

Gray v. Virga, No. 2:12-CV-03006 2015 WL 1509082, at *7 (E.D. Cal. April 1, 

2015)(information from file of perpetrator of assault could support plaintiff’s claim that 

defendants knew perpetrator to be a danger to others).

Defendants’ response that they have no knowledge of prior incidents is suspect given 

Plaintiff’s allegations that Richee assaulted him in February 2013 and that the two were 

subsequently designated “enemies.” It is not clear whether Defendants deny this 

occurred, deny they have any knowledge of it having occurred, or are being 

disingenuous. Defendants are reminded that they are to answer with regard to 

knowledge in or subject to their possession, custody, or control. Certainly, records of 

such events are available to them or their counsel.

 

2 Read literally, the request asks whether Richee was disciplined for any reason. Such an interpretation 

would leave the request overbroad in asking about discipline wholly unrelated to issues raised in this case. 

Accordingly, the Court reads it as calling for “discipline for fighting.”

Case 1:14-cv-01216-LJO-MJS Document 24 Filed 06/10/15 Page 4 of 12
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

Defendants’ objections on the basis of privilege will also be overruled. While Cal. 

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(b) may prevent Defendants from producing documents from 

another inmate’s central file absent a court order, it does not prevent Defendants from 

responding to an interrogatory on the same issues. See Cordoba v. Dickinson, No. CIV 

S-10-2944 2012 WL 868926, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012)(plaintiff “could and should 

have sought” information about Defendants’ conduct from the central file of his inmateenemy “through interrogatories, requests for admissions, or other available discovery 

devices”); Gamez v. Gonzalez, No. 08-cv-1113 2011 WL 1087090, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 

24, 2011)(Plaintiff did not have a right to confidential debriefing reports, but was entitled 

to limited disclosure of the information in the reports). 

However, the request is overbroad as to time. An incident long years before the 

event in issue in this case would be of little, if any, relevance here. Events within the 

three years preceding April 2013 could potentially be relevant. The Court will order 

Defendants to answer with regard to that time period.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to the first interrogatory, 

and Defendants shall provide further responses relating to the three year period prior to 

April 2013.

2. Interrogatory No. 2

a. Request

Has any inmate other than Plaintiff ever accused you of 

failing to protect an Inmate since the beginning of your 

employment by the CDCR?

b. Response

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the 

terms “failing to protect” and calls for a legal conclusion. 

Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad 

as to time. Defendant further objects that this request seeks 

information not relevant to any claim or defense at issue in 

this lawsuit, and thus is not reasonably calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P.. 26(b). 

Case 1:14-cv-01216-LJO-MJS Document 24 Filed 06/10/15 Page 5 of 12
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

Without waiving objections, Defendant responds as follows: 

Not to my knowledge.

c. Analysis

Defendant’s objections are sustained in part and overruled in part, and 

Defendants will be required to answer subject to the limitations described below.

The request is not vague or ambiguous and does not call for a legal conclusion. 

Giving it a fair and reasonable reading in light of the facts of this case, it simply asks 

whether other inmates previously filed grievances alleging that Defendants failed to 

protect them from assaults. Previous complaints against Defendants are relevant insofar 

as they could help establish possible a pattern or practice of failing to protect inmates 

from one another. See Taylor v. O'Hanneson, No. 1:11-CV-00538 2014 WL 2696585, at 

*4-5 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2014)(citing Ramirez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407, 

412 (C.D.Cal.2005)); see also Wheeler v. Alison, No. 1:12-cv-00861 2015 WL 269148, 

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2015)(discussing scope of plaintiff’s ability to discover 

Defendant’s past behavior). While admissibility of character evidence is a trial objection,

discovery is much broader. Even at trial, evidence inadmissible to prove character may 

be admissible for other purposes, as Plaintiff observes in his motion to compel (ECF No. 

22, at 2). See also Taylor, 2014 WL 2696585, at *4. 

The Court agrees that Plaintiff's request is overbroad as to time; thus, the Court 

will order Defendants to provide further responses regarding grievances alleging 

Defendants failed to protect within the three years preceding April 2013. See Wheeler, 

2015 WL 269148, at *2.

In their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Defendants assert that inmate 

grievances are not categorized by the staff members named in the grievance, so 

Defendants have no reasonable way to search for the information “other than to look 

Case 1:14-cv-01216-LJO-MJS Document 24 Filed 06/10/15 Page 6 of 12
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

through every inmate appeal ever submitted during each individual Defendants’ [sic] 

tenure at a particular institution.” (ECF No. 23, at 9.) However, inmate appeals are

apparently categorized by both “the institution where the grieved issue took place and 

the inmate’s appeal issue.” Id. Therefore, Defendants may search for inmate appeal 

issues categorized as, e.g., “inmate assault” or “failure to protect” claims.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 2 is 

GRANTED; Defendants must provide further responses regarding grievances, filed 

within the three years preceding April 2013, alleging that they failed to protect an inmate

from harm.

3. Interrogatory No. 3

a. Request

Has anyone ever initiated a Staff Complaint against you since 

the beginning of your employment by the CDCR?

b. Response

Objection. This request is overbroad as to scope and time. 

Defendant further objects that this request seeks information 

not relevant to any claim or defense at issue in this lawsuit, 

and is thus not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The request 

also calls for confidential information protected by privacy 

rights of staff and inmates guaranteed by the United States 

and California Constitutions, applicable statutes such as 

Government Code section 6254; and calls for confidential 

information that would unduly expose the institution, staff 

and/or other inmates to a substantial risk of harm under 

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3321. 

Additionally, the production of confidential information is 

improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have 

access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code 

Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). 

Without waiving objections, Defendant responds as follows: 

Not to my knowledge.

c. Analysis and Ruling:

Defendants’ objection based on relevance is overruled. As with grievances alleging 

Defendants’ failure to protect them, previous staff complaints could show bias, a pattern 

Case 1:14-cv-01216-LJO-MJS Document 24 Filed 06/10/15 Page 7 of 12
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

or practice of unprofessional behavior, or Defendants’ knowledge of complaints against 

them. See Taylor, 2014 WL 2696585, at *4 (citing Ramirez, 231 F.R.D. at 412); Wheeler, 

2015 WL 269148, at *2. In addition, Defendants suggest in their opposition to the 

motion to compel that such a complaint may have been made in response to Plaintiff’s 

allegations against them, indicating that some responsive information is contained within 

their files. (ECF No. 23, at 8.)

The Court agrees, however, that the request is overbroad as to scope and time. 

Thus, the Court will order Defendants to provide further responses regarding staff 

complaints made within the last three years regarding inmate assaults and failures to 

protect. 

As to Defendants' objection on privacy grounds, although the Court may take into 

account the privacy interests potentially implicated in the disclosure of documents and 

information, “privacy concerns are not absolute; they must be weighed against other 

competing interests.” Ramirez, 231 F.R.D. at 411 (C.D.Cal. 2005). Ramirez recognized 

in the context of excessive force complaints against police officers:

“Most information requested by civil rights plaintiffs in these lawsuits deals 

with professional personnel records, such as prior involvement in 

disciplinary proceedings or citizen complaints filed against the officers. The 

privacy interest in this kind of professional record is not substantial, 

because it is not the kind of ‘highly personal’ information warranting 

constitutional safeguard. The privacy interest in nondisclosure of 

professional records should be especially limited in view of the role played 

by the police officer as a public servant who must be accountable to public 

review.”

Id. These concerns are equally applicable to allegations that a correctional officer 

failed to protect an inmate from a known risk of assault. See Taylor, 2014 WL 2696585, 

at *5. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 3 is 

GRANTED; Defendants must provide further responses regarding staff complaints, filed 

Case 1:14-cv-01216-LJO-MJS Document 24 Filed 06/10/15 Page 8 of 12
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

9

within the three years preceding April 2013, alleging that they failed to protect an inmate 

from harm.

4. Interrogatory No. 4

a. Request

Has any inmate ever initiated a Staff Complaint against you 

since the beginning of your employment by the CDCR?

b. Response

Objection. This request is overbroad as to scope and time. 

Defendant further objects that this request seeks information 

not relevant to any claim or defense at issue in this lawsuit, 

and is thus not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The request 

also calls for confidential information protected by privacy 

rights of staff and inmates guaranteed by the United States 

and California Constitutions, applicable statutes such as 

Government Code section 6254; and calls for confidential 

information that would unduly expose the institution, staff 

and/or other inmates to a substantial risk of harm under 

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3321. 

Additionally, the production of confidential information is 

improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have 

access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code 

Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). 

Without waiving objections, Defendant responds as follows: 

Not to my knowledge.

c. Analysis and Ruling

Defendants’ objections to Interrogatory No. 4 are the same as their objections to 

Interrogatory No. 3. The Court adopts its ruling on Interrogatory No. 3 above to sustain in 

part and overrule in part Defendants’ objections and order Defendants to respond in 

accord with the directions and limitations set forth in regard to Request No. 3 above, 

except here the response will be limited to those complaints initiated by inmates.

5. Interrogatory No. 5

a. Request

Identify any and all Complaints or grievances filed by any 

inmate against you pertaining to your Failing to Protect 

conduct.

b. Response

Case 1:14-cv-01216-LJO-MJS Document 24 Filed 06/10/15 Page 9 of 12
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

10

Objection. This request is overbroad as to scope and time. 

Defendant further objects that this request seeks information 

not relevant to any claim or defense at issue in this lawsuit, 

and is thus not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The request 

also calls for confidential information protected by privacy 

rights of staff and inmates guaranteed by the United States 

and California Constitutions, applicable statutes such as 

Government Code section 6254; and calls for confidential 

information that would unduly expose the institution, staff 

and/or other inmates to a substantial risk of harm under 

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3321. 

Additionally, the production of confidential information is 

improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have 

access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code 

Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). 

Without waiving objections, Defendant responds as follows: 

Not to my knowledge.

c. Analysis and Ruling

Defendants’ objections to Interrogatory No. 5 are overruled for the same reason as 

their objections to Interrogatory No. 2 were overruled. Defendants shall respond with 

regard to such complaints or grievance’s filed within the three years preceding April

2013. It appears Plaintiff did not specify “identify” or define what he meant by the word. 

However, a good faith, reasonable interpretation would call for a response which 

specified the date of, parties to, nature of, and outcome of any such complaint or 

grievance.

6. Request for Production No. 1

a. Request

Produce the CDC Form 154 (Bed Move) dated April 2, 2013 

of Inmate Richee AM8781 with the information, who 

authorized the bed move and who approved the bed move.

b. Response

Objection. This request seeks information of a non-party 

inmate that is deemed confidential under California Code of 

Regulations, Title 15, section 3321, the disclosure of which 

could: (1) endanger the safety of other inmates and staff of 

the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security of the institution. 

Additionally, the production of confidential information is 

Case 1:14-cv-01216-LJO-MJS Document 24 Filed 06/10/15 Page 10 of 12
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

11

improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have 

access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code 

Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). Defendant further objects to this 

request on the ground that it seeks information Plaintiff 

cannot possess under section 3450(d) of Title 15 of the 

California Code of Regulation. Defendant further objects to 

this request on the ground that disclosure of this information 

is unauthorized and would jeopardize institutional security 

under sections 3275 and 3276 of Title 15 of the California 

Code of Regulations.

c. Analysis and Ruling

Defendants cite Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370 to argue that production of these 

documents is prohibited. However, while this regulation “may prevent defendants from 

producing the documents without a court order, they do not prevent this court from 

issuing an order requiring their production.” Gray, 2015 WL 1509082, at *7 (ordering 

release of redacted rule violation reports pertaining to violent behavior by Plaintiff’s 

attacker).

Defendants also argue, without elaboration, that the bed move form contains 

confidential information, and thus that disclosure would be prohibited under Cal. Code 

Regs. tit. 15 § 3450(d). Without more information about any possible security threat 

disclosure might to pose, the Court will overrule Defendants’ objections and order 

disclosure of the Bed Move form.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART;

2. Defendants shall provide further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1

through 5 and Request for Production No. 1 within thirty (30) days of 

service of this Order; and

Case 1:14-cv-01216-LJO-MJS Document 24 Filed 06/10/15 Page 11 of 12
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

12

3. Plaintiff may, but need not, file a further motion to compel within fourteen 

(14) days of service of Defendant’s further response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01216-LJO-MJS Document 24 Filed 06/10/15 Page 12 of 12