Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00698/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00698-3/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

17CV698-CAB(JMA)

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

RUBEN GIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17CV698-CAB(JMA)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 

DISCLOSE PRIVILEGED 

DOCUMENTS [DOC. NO. 102]; 

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF INVESTIGATOR [DOC. NO. 

101]; EX PARTE APPLICATION 

TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL 

DISCOVERY [DOC. NO. 111]; & 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

[DOC. NO. 109.]

Currently pending before the Court are three discovery related motions and 

a motion for sanctions filed by Plaintiff Ruben Gil, who is proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

The Court will address each in turn.

Introduction

Plaintiff, who was incarcerated and housed at R.J. Donovan Correctional 

Facility (“Donovan”) when he initiated this lawsuit, alleges when he was 

transferred to Donovan he informed Defendant Captain Sanchez (now Searles)

Case 3:17-cv-00698-CAB-JMA Document 116 Filed 08/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17CV698-CAB(JMA)

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 Defendant Lieutenant Williams that he had experienced assaults by 

“Security Threat Groups” since 2013, including a recent assault in his cell at the 

“other institution.”1 Doc. No. 1, p. 3 of 8. He alleges that despite knowing Plaintiff 

is at ongoing risk of harm by members of the “Security Threat Groups,” 

Defendant Sanchez assigned Plaintiff “cellies” that are members of these groups, 

creating serious risk to Plaintiff’s life. Id. Defendant Williams is alleged to be 

aware of, but indifferent to, Plaintiff’s situation. Id., p. 2 of 8.

Ex Parte Application to Disclose Privileged Documents & Request for 

Appointment of Investigator [Doc. Nos. 101 & 102]

On June 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed two motions with intertwining arguments he 

requests the Court address jointly. In one motion, Plaintiff requests the Court 

compel the disclosure of “privilege documents, staff threat and investigations, the 

combined acts of prison officials, as well as the misconduct of inmates that staff 

was segregating him with and the misconduct of prison officials in the institutions 

Plaintiff got assaulted during all his years until this moment.” Doc. No. 102, p. 3.

In the other, Plaintiff requests the Court appoint an investigator to get the 

privileged documents and present them to the Court. Doc. No. 101, p. 2.

It is not clear to the Court what documents are at issue, as Plaintiff has 

provided only general argument, rather than specifying which documents he

seeks. It is also not clear what privilege has been asserted as a basis for 

withholding these documents and Plaintiff offers no argument as to why he 

should be permitted to review documents that are designated as privileged and 

protected from disclosure. When a party objects to a discovery request, it is the 

burden of the party moving to compel to demonstrate why the objection is not 

 

1

 Plaintiff is no longer housed at Donovan, as he was transferred to Corcoran State Prison

“Cocoran” on November 7, 2017 (Doc. No. 39), and has since placed in the Male Community 

Reentry Program Discovery in Los Angeles (Doc. Nos. 112 & 113).

Case 3:17-cv-00698-CAB-JMA Document 116 Filed 08/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17CV698-CAB(JMA)

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

justified. See Lemons v. Camarillo, 2017 WL 4700074, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 

2017; Glass v. Beer, 2007 WL 913876, at *1 (E.D. Cal Mar. 23, 2007). Here, 

Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of informing the Court why the information he 

seeks is relevant and why Defendants' privilege-based objections are not 

justified. Id.; see also Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff’s motions to obtain privileged documents and for the appointment of an 

investigator to review these documents are, therefore, DENIED.

Ex Parte Application to Permit Additional Discovery [Doc. No. 111.]

On August 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application requesting he be 

permitted to conduct additional discovery, which he claims will allow him to show 

that CDCR staff continue to subject him to the same conditions described in his 

Complaint. Doc. No. 111, p. 2. Plaintiff’s request implies he seeks relief from the 

deadline for completion of discovery, which passed over five months ago, on 

March 16, 2018. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) allows a schedule to be modified for 

good cause and with a judge's consent. Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard 

primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. See e.g., 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992); See 

also Rich v. Schrader (S.D. Cal. 2013) 2013 WL 3710806 at 2. Thus, in order to 

demonstrate good cause, a party must demonstrate its diligence in taking 

discovery and diligence in propounding or noticing the particular outstanding 

discovery, and explain why it could not conduct the particular discovery before 

the discovery cut-off date. Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the 

party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a 

motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking 

modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 

Plaintiff offers no explanation as to what specific discovery he would 

conduct if granted relief from the discovery deadline, or why he did not conduct it 

prior to the discovery deadline. Furthermore, the discovery he seeks, which he 

Case 3:17-cv-00698-CAB-JMA Document 116 Filed 08/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17CV698-CAB(JMA)

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

claims will show CDCR staff continue to subject him to the same conditions 

described in his Complaint, is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims or any defense, 

and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff’s claims arise from 

Defendants Sanchez and William’s role in Plaintiff’s housing placement while he 

was at Donovan; however, he has not been housed at Donovan since he was 

transferred to Corcoran State Prison on November 7, 2017. Doc. No. 39.

Discovery regarding housing placement decisions made at facilities other than 

Donovan and by CDCR staff other than the named Defendants, including his 

current housing circumstances, is neither relevant nor proportional to the claims 

and defenses raised in this case. Plaintiff’s ex parte application for leave to 

conduct additional discovery is, therefore, DENIED.

Motion for Sanctions [Doc. No. 109]

On August 15, 2018, Plaintiff also filed a motion requesting sanctions be 

imposed because CDCR staff “keeps retaliating for filing a lawsuit.” Doc. No. 

109, p. 1. He reports he has tried to exhaust his administrative remedies and 

“staff keeps retaliating and tripping Plaintiff to exhaust.” Id. Plaintiff submits 

copies of records of administrative grievances and appeals he has filed since his 

transfer to Cocoran in support of his motion. Id. pp. 3-40. The conduct for which 

Plaintiff seeks sanctions does not fall within the scope of his pleadings. 

Moreover, although he does not specify against whom he wants sanctions 

imposed, it appears the request is directed towards CDCR staff at Corcoran, 

none of whom are a party in this lawsuit. The Court does not have jurisdiction to 

impose sanctions on third parties for conduct that falls outside the scope of 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is, therefore, DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 31, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00698-CAB-JMA Document 116 Filed 08/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17CV698-CAB(JMA)

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

Case 3:17-cv-00698-CAB-JMA Document 116 Filed 08/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5