Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02984/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02984-1/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 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

A. SILVA, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No.: 13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S 

PENDING DISCOVERY 

MOTIONS 

[ECF Nos. 109, 111, 113, 125, 131, 

133, 139, 143, 164] 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, with a civil complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Before this Court are Plaintiff’s 10 discovery motions, which seek to 

compel 343 further discovery responses from 12 different Defendants. 

Defendants objected to the demands but have not opposed the motions. 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motions, briefs, and exhibits, the Court 

deems the matters suitable for determination on the papers and rules 

as follows. 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 35
2 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

I. ECF Nos. 109, 111, 113, 125 (first motion in filing), 131, 

133, 139 : Motions to Compel Defendants to Provide 

Further Discovery Responses 

Most of Plaintiff’s motions seek to compel Defendants to provide 

further responses to written discovery. Plaintiff attached each set of 

requests and responses for the Court’s review. The Court has reviewed 

each of the requests and responses at issue, as well as Plaintiff’s 

arguments for compelling further responses as set forth in the 

“Notice(s) of Good Faith” he filed. Because the issues raised by these 

motions overlap significantly, the Court analyzes the sufficiency of 

these discovery responses in groups according to the overlapping issues 

raised. 

a. Inadequate Meet and Confer Process 

The Court finds that Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good 

faith with these Defendants about the allegedly inadequate discovery 

responses. Serving a threat-laden “Notice of Good Faith Dispute” is 

quite different from actually conferring in good faith as required. Fed. 

R. C. P. 37(a)(1) (a motion to compel “must include a certification that 

the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer”); see also, 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 35
3 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

S. D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 26.1(a); Chambers Civ. R. § V.A. Rules requiring 

that the moving party meet and confer in good faith apply to pro se 

litigants, though incarcerated plaintiffs are not required to meet and 

confer in-person. Incarcerated plaintiffs can and do engage in 

telephonic meet and confer discussions, or may exchange letters drafted 

in good faith to attempt to resolve the dispute informally. See, e.g., 

Madsen v. Risenhoover, No. C 09–5457 SBA (PR), 2012 WL 2873836, at 

*3, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90810, at *8–9 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) 

(finding that the meet and confer requirement applies to incarcerated 

individuals, but noting that the incarcerated plaintiff may send a letter 

to defendants); Walker v. Ryan, No. CV–10–1408–PHX–JWS (LOA), 

2012 WL 1599984, at *2–3, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63606, at *5–6 (D. 

Ariz. May 7, 2012) (denying motion to compel where unrepresented 

party did not include a certification of attempts to meet and confer). 

Although Plaintiff’s letters to Defendants’ attorney do set forth 

some substantive explanations for challenging the sufficiency of the 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 35
4 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

responses, the letters are peppered with personal insults,1 threats of 

sanctions, and at least one more serious threat: that even if Defendant 

Thompson “can evade the truth” in pretrial discovery, “there are more 

powerful investigative agencies at work on the RJ Donovan Ad-Seg 

Unit’s cabal of sadistic Nazi-type criminals and obstruction of these 

agencies by Thompson and his subordinates will be their downfall.” 

(ECF No. 109 at 76:25-28). Plaintiff may hold a good faith belief in the 

                                                            

1 See e.g., ECF No. 109 at 74-75 (“Thompson is a liar and will hopefully 

face criminal charges”); id. at 75 (“I can’t wait to see this Defendant’s 

red-face in court.”); ECF No. 113 at 26 (“All facts show Buenrostro was 

part of a team of sick, sadistic correctional officers who abused their 

authority”); id. at 29 (“Buenrostro should get his eyes checked.” And, 

“Defendant Buenrostro [is] a sick desperate individual.”); id. at 30 

(“DUH! Buenrostro’s responses and objections are so contrived. I can’t 

wait to see his lying face in court!”); id. at (“hopefully the F.B.I. has 

Buenrostro in its sights and a federal prison cell waiting!”); id. at 32 

(Buenrostro is a “bald-faced liar!”); ECF No. 125 at 16 (“Tyson’s claims 

of being ‘objective, trained and competent’ are clearly figments of 

Tyson’s self-importance.... [Tyson used] gestapo-type brutality and 

torture...”); id. at 18 (“...Tyson and his sadistic co-Defendants”); id. at 

20 (“I guess the Defendant is unaware of a device called ‘a telephone.’”); 

id. at 25 (“...Tyson is guilty as hell...”); id. at 29 (Warden Paramo “is 

truly delusional and must believe ‘pigs can fly too!’”); id. at 32 (“Guess 

What Fontan, you’re busted!” (emphasis in original)).

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 35
5 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

inadequacy of the responses, but his abusive, extortionate letters to 

Defendants were sent in anything but good faith. Including insults and 

threats in such letters forecloses the possibility of an informal 

resolution rather than promoting resolution. The Court finds that 

Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith. 

Failure to meet and confer in good faith is grounds for denial of 

the motion to compel. Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 995 (8th Cir. 

2006); Rogers v. Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. 469, 477 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (noting 

that failure to meet and confer is grounds for denial, but waiving 

requirement in that instance); Scheinuck v. Sepulveda, No. C 09–0727 

WHA (PR), 2010 WL 5174340, at *1–2, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136529, 

at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010); see Shaw v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 

06–CV–2680–IEG (POR), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80508, at *3–4 (S.D. 

Cal. Oct. 9, 2008) (denying plaintiff's motion to compel for failing to 

attempt to meet and confer.). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel 

these responses is DENIED. 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 35
6 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

b. Responses Are Sufficient 

Even if Plaintiff had meet and conferred in good faith, Plaintiff’s 

motions as to all but one of the requests is DENIED because the 

responses are sufficient. 

i. Plaintiff Has Not Shown Responses Are Evasive or 

Incomplete 

Plaintiff principally finds fault with each interrogatory, request 

for admission, and document demand response because he believes the 

Defendants are being evasive or withholding information. While Rule 

37(a)(4) states that an “evasive” disclosure “must be treated as a failure 

to disclose, answer, or respond,” it is nevertheless the moving party’s 

burden to establish that an answer is evasive or incomplete. Plaintiff 

has not presented any basis, besides sheer speculation and his own 

distrust, for finding the Defendants’ responses evasive. Plaintiff’s mere 

disagreement with Defendants’ answers does not render them evasive 

or incomplete. 

For instance, Interrogatory No. 14 to Defendant Ojeda asks: 

Please explain why inmate Heilman was not 

immediately transported to the prison hospital when 

defendant correctional officers “allegedly discovered” 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 35
7 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Heilman in room # 229 bldg six ad seg unit with a sheet 

“wrapped around his neck,” and explain why Heilman 

was kept in holding cage immediately after an 

attempted hanging with “obvious” physical injuries and 

requesting medical care for approximately four (4) hours 

from 7:20 am-11:20 am, and whether you an ad seg 

supervisor refused to allow Heilman to be transported to 

the clinic for immediate medical care. 

(ECF No. 109 at 42). Defendant Ojeda responds: 

Objection—argumentative, assumes facts in dispute, 

compound, and vague and ambiguous. Without waiving 

objections, Defendant responds as follows: The Officers 

never reported that Heilman was hanging. I do not 

control any aspect of an inmates medical care which 

includes medical transportation. 

(Id.). Plaintiff seeks a further response to this interrogatory from 

Defendant Ojeda on the basis that Plaintiff “deems the response to No. 

14 to be evasive, misleading, inaccurate, and a self-serving fabrication 

to conceal Defendant’s unlawful and illegal acts.” (Id. at 17-18). 

In another example, Interrogatory No. 1 to Defendant Ojeda asks: 

Please explain and describe your duties at your assigned 

post on May 8-9, 2013 in the bld six ad-seg unit at RJ 

Donovan prison. 

(Id. at 37). Defendant Ojeda responds: 

My duties at my assigned post #220370 on May 8, 2013 

and May 9, 2013 were to supervise the operation of the 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 35
8 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Administrative Segregation Units, building units six 

and seven during the hours of 0600 hours to 1400 hours. 

(Id.). Nevertheless, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s substantive 

response to Interrogatory No. 1 is “evasive and misleading.” (Id. at 13). 

Plaintiff also objects to interrogatory responses that produce responsive 

business records in lieu of providing written responses on the basis that 

the responses are evasive and incomplete. (See, e.g., Russell response to 

Interrogatory No. 1 attaching job description document in lieu of 

written response describing job duties). 

The Defendants’ responses do not appear incomplete, misleading, 

fabricated, or evasive, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s characterization. 

Interrogatories are not designed to elicit the type of detailed narrative 

Plaintiff seeks in these requests. Plaintiff’s proper recourse to obtain 

additional details would have been to depose the responding party. In 

addition, the Defendants were well within their rights to produce 

responsive business records in lieu of a written interrogatory response. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). And, as Plaintiff well knows, a response is not 

properly characterized as evasive or incomplete where the defendant 

lacks knowledge necessary to answer. See Heilman v. Chernis, 2012 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 35
9 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

WL 5187732, at *6, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150342, at *16 (E.D. Cal. 

Oct. 18, 2012); Gorrell v. Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 629, 636 (E.D. Cal. 2013) 

(relying on Heilman). 

In many instances, Plaintiff draws the conclusion that the 

responses are evasive because he feels the Defendants’ responses 

contradict other responses. (See e.g., Id. at 18 (Plaintiff argues 

Defendant Ojeda’s response to interrogatory No. 14 contradicts with 

Ojeda’s response to an earlier interrogatory)). Apparent inconsistencies 

like the one Plaintiff focuses on in Defendant Ojeda’s response to 

interrogatory No. 14 are not a proper basis for compelling a further 

response. Instead, Plaintiff’s recourse is investigate inconsistencies 

through depositions and to present the supposedly conflicting 

statements as evidence at trial and argue that the inconsistencies prove 

his case or entitle him to an adverse inference instruction. If 

Defendants seek to present evidence at trial that they withheld during 

discovery, Plaintiff may seek to exclude that evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37. 

Plaintiff has presented nothing, besides his own difference of 

opinion, to indicate that these responses are evasive, incomplete or 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 35
10 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

otherwise inadequate under the Rules of Civil Procedure. See Franklin 

v. Smalls, No. 09CV1067 MMA RBB, 2012 WL 5077630, at *16 (S.D. 

Cal. Oct. 18, 2012) (Plaintiff did not meet burden to show how 

“unsatisfactory answer” was deficient); Washington v. Thurgood 

Marshall Acad., 232 F.R.D. 6, 9 (D.D.C. 2005) (“Because plaintiff has 

completely failed to explain how defendant's answers were evasive, 

incomplete, or non-responsive, it is impossible for the court to determine 

what information plaintiff wants compelled.”); see also Daiflon, Inc. v. 

Allied Chem. Corp., 534 F.2d 221, 227 (10th Cir. 1976) (noting that the 

movant has the burden of proving that the answer in question was 

incomplete). 

The gist of Plaintiff’s motion is that Plaintiff believes the facts to 

be different than the Defendants believe them to be, and that the 

Defendants are not credible. As Plaintiff well knows, “[t]he Court 

cannot conclude that defendant is being dishonest simply because 

plaintiff presents different facts than defendant.” Heilman v. Vojkufka, 

No. CIV S-08-2788, 2011 WL 677877, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2011) 

report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV S-08-2788 KJM, 2011 WL 

3881023 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011). 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 35
11 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Finally, Plaintiff seeks to compel a further response or production 

to a large number of requests for document production, even though 

Defendants already produced documents or responded by stating that 

no responsive documents exist. In the instances in which Defendants 

produced documents, Plaintiff made no attempt to explain why he 

believes the document productions were incomplete. In the instances 

where Defendants respond that no documents exist, Plaintiff provides 

no basis (besides his own disbelief) for concluding that the Defendants’ 

responses were evasive. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions to compel the 

following responses because Plaintiff has not carried his burden to show 

that the responses or document productions are evasive or incomplete: 

Interrogatories: 

 Arguilez: 1, 7, 8, 12, 16, 20, 22, 25 

 Armstead: 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 18 

 Fontan: 2, 4, 6 

 Franco: 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 

 Buenrostro: 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22 

Jaca: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 23

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 35
12 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Paramo (Set One): 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 

Paramo (Set Two): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 

Ojeda: 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21 

Russell (Set One): 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 

Russell (Set Two): 4, 5 

Silva: 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 

 Thompson (Set One): 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13 

 Thompson (Set Two): 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 

 Tyson: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 23 

 

Requests for Admission: 

Arguilez: 12, 15, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36 

Armstead: 6, 7, 8 

Buenrostro: 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 

Fontan: 1, 13 

Franco: 12, 19, 23, 24, 25 

Jaca: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 19, 21, 26, 27, 28, 31, 

Ojeda: 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 35
13 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Russell: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 

25, 26, 27, 28, 29 

Silva: 5, 6, 15, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26, 

Thompson: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23 

Tyson: 3, 9, 10, 17, 18, 24, 26, 32, 33 

 

 Requests for Document Production: 

 Arguilez: 4, 7, 9, 10 

 Buenrostro: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 

Franco: 2, 3, 4 

Ojeda: 1, 2, 3, 7 

 Russell: 8 

 Silva: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12 

 Thompson: 7 

ii. Objectionable Interrogatories and Requests for 

Admissions 

In addition, most of the interrogatory requests are so compound, 

vague, ambiguous, argumentative, or burdensome that requiring a 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 35
14 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

further response to any of these questions would be overly burdensome. 

Looking again at Interrogatory No. 14 to Defendant Ojeda, Plaintiff 

asks: 

Please explain why inmate Heilman was not 

immediately transported to the prison hospital when 

defendant correctional officers “allegedly discovered” 

Heilman in room # 229 bldg six ad seg unit with a sheet 

“wrapped around his neck,” and explain why Heilman 

was kept in holding cage immediately after an 

attempted hanging with “obvious” physical injuries and 

requesting medical care for approximately four (4) hours 

from 7:20 am-11:20 am, and whether you an ad seg 

supervisor refused to allow Heilman to be transported to 

the clinic for immediate medical care. 

(ECF No. 109 at 42). Remarkably, Defendants attempt to substantively 

answer most of these confusing requests. For instance, in response to 

Interrogatory No. 14, Defendant Ojeda responds: 

Objection—argumentative, assumes facts in dispute, 

compound, and vague and ambiguous. Without waiving 

objections, Defendant responds as follows: The Officers 

never reported that Heilman was hanging. I do not 

control any aspect of an inmates medical care which 

includes medical transportation. 

(Id.). 

Defendants did not respond substantively to all of Plaintiff’s 

objectionable requests. For instance, Interrogatory No. 16 demands 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 35
15 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

that Defendant Ojeda explain whether his description in his report that 

officers used “physical force in an attempt to restrain inmate Heilman” 

was an accurate portrayal of 

how correctional officers inflicted multiple injuries to 

Heilman including facial injuries with swelling, 

bruising, and bleeding requiring x-rays for possible 

facial or jaw fractures, a 40% collapse of Heilman’s left 

lung with an associate air seepage into his lungs 

(pneumothorax) which required extensive surgical 

repair. 

(Id. at 43). Defendant Ojeda objects that this request assumes facts in 

dispute, is vague and ambiguous, seeks an expert opinion, and is 

argumentative. (Id.). The Court agrees. The request as phrased is 

hard to understand, argumentative, and calls for Defendant to respond 

as if he were a medical expert rather than seeking his lay observations. 

It is argumentative because it requires the Defendant to adopt 

Plaintiff’s version of the underlying events. Plaintiff may use 

interrogatories to discover what the facts are as the responding party 

sees them—not to require the responding party to adopt the facts as 

Plaintiff sees them. This request is not aimed at discovering 

information or narrowing the issues to be tried. 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 35
16 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

The Court holds that the Defendants are also excused from 

further responding to the following requests. The Court finds that each 

of the following requests are compound, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, 

duplicative, call for an expert opinion, call for speculation, are so 

argumentative as to be harassing, call for information readily available 

to Plaintiff in document that has been produced or is publicly available, 

or a combination of several of these deficiencies. The Court further 

finds that Defendants’ substantive responses, when they provide a 

substantive response, are sufficient, and finds that Defendants are 

excused from substantively responding to the objectionable responses to 

which they did not formulate a substantive response. 

Interrogatories: 

 Arguilez: 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 20, 22, 25 

Armstead: 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 18 

Buenrostro: 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22 

Fontan: 2, 4, 6 

Franco: 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 

Jaca: 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 23 

Ojeda: 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 35
17 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Paramo (Set One): 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 

Paramo (Set Two): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 

 Russell (Set One): 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18 

Russell (Set Two): 2, 4, 5 

Silva: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 

Thompson (Set One): 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13 

Thompson (Set Two): 3, 5, 6 

Tyson: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23 

 Requests for Admission: 

Arguilez: 26, 30, 31, 36 

Buenrostro: 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 18, 20 

 Franco: 12, 18, 23, 24, 25 

Jaca: 7, 19, 21, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32 

Ojeda: 8, 17, 22, 25, 28, 29, 35 

 Russell: 29 

Silva: 5, 6, 9, 15, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 36, 38 

 Tyson: 3, 9, 10, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 39 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 35
18 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to 

these requests are DENIED. In so finding, the Court emphasizes that 

it has reviewed and considered each response at issue on an individual 

basis and determined that at least one of the objections raised by 

Defendant to each request should be sustained, such that no 

substantive response is required. 

iii. Objectionable Requests for Documents 

1. Defendants’ Statements Alleging Battery or 

Assault on Peace Officer by an Inmate 

Request No. 8 to Defendant Ojeda demands that Ojeda provide all 

statements he personally gave against inmates housed in the building 

six administrative segregation unit in a CDCR crime/incident report 

alleging inmate “battery or assault on a peace officer.” (Id. at 63). 

Defendant Ojeda objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, 

overbroad, irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence, and burdensome. (Id. at 64). In his “Notice of 

Good Faith” arguments, Plaintiff interprets the scope of his own request 

to include just the “documents containing interviews pertaining to the 

allegation filed against Heilman for ‘Battery on a Peace Officer’ by 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 35
19 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Defendant D. Tyson on May 9, 2013.” (Id. at 33). Plaintiff’s limited 

interpretation of his own request demonstrates that the original request 

was vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and burdensome. Moreover, the 

request as interpreted by Plaintiff merely seeks the same documents he 

requests in Request for Production No. 2 to Defendant Ojeda, and 

Request No. 8 is therefore duplicative. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request No. 8 from 

Defendant Ojeda. 

2. Defendants’ CDCR Personnel Records 

Plaintiff also seeks to compel a further response from Defendant 

Russell to Request No. 1, seeking “a copy of your CDCR personnel 

record. All personal information should be redacted.” (ECF No. 109 at 

131). Defendant Russell advances several objections, including that the 

request is overly broad, burdensome, irrelevant, and seeks confidential 

peace officer information and violates the official information privilege. 

Defendant’s objections that this request is overbroad, burdensome, and 

seeks irrelevant evidence are sustained. Discovery may not be used as 

a fishing expedition into the affairs of an adversary. See, e.g., H-P-M 

Dev. Corp v. Watson-Stillman Co., 71 F. Supp. 906, 914 (D. N.J. 1947). 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

 35
20 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Plaintiff has not carried his burden to show how Defendant Russell’s 

confidential personnel record is relevant to his claims. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response by Defendant Russell to 

Request No. 1 is DENIED. 

3. Adverse Actions Against Defendant at CDCR 

Request No. 3 to Defendant Thompson and Request No. 4 to 

Defendant Franco seek all adverse actions taken against them as CDCR 

correctional staff members. (ECF No. 109 at 102; ECF No. 111 at 86). 

Defendants object on a number of grounds. Defendant Thompson’s 

most pertinent objection is that the request is duplicative of Request 

No. 1 (to which Plaintiff is not seeking to compel a further response). 

Plaintiff does not dispute that this request is duplicative of Request No. 

1. Indeed, Request No. 1 asks for the disciplinary section of Defendant 

Thompson’s CDCR general personnel file. (Id. at 101). The Court finds 

no material difference between the two requests. In response to 

Request No. 1, Defendant objected and then answered “[n]o documents 

were located responsive to this request.” (Id.). In light of that response, 

the Court declines to compel a further response to the duplicative 

request at No. 3. Similarly, Defendant Franco’s objections to Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of

 35
21 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

request for records of disciplinary or adverse actions are followed by his 

affirmation that “No documents were located responsive to this 

request.” (ECF No. 111 at 86). Plaintiff has not shown this response to 

be evasive. Accordingly, the motion to compel further response to 

Request No. 4 to Defendant Franco is DENIED. 

Likewise, Plaintiff demands from Defendant Arguilez both “a copy 

of the disciplinary section of your CDCR general personnel file,” and “a 

copy of any/all actions CDCR administrative filed against you.” (ECF 

No. 111 at 42). Defendants object that the requests are irrelevant, 

compound, vague and ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, 

and seek confidential peace officer information and violate the official 

information privilege. (Id.). Defendant also provided a privilege log to 

Plaintiff in response to Request No. 2, but Plaintiff did not provide that 

privilege log to this Court. The Court agrees that the request is 

overbroad and that most if not all of the documents responsive to this 

request are irrelevant to this action. For instance, if Defendant was 

disciplined for tardiness, those records would have no bearing on this 

matter. Plaintiff fails to carry his burden to show the relevance of the 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of

 35
22 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

records requested. Consequently, his motion to compel these requests is 

DENIED. 

4. Criminal Convictions and Arrests 

Plaintiff also seeks to compel further responses from Defendant 

Thompson to Request No. 4, from Defendant Russell to Request No. 7, 

from Defendant Silva to Request No. 5, from Defendant Buenrostro to 

Request No. 5, and from Defendant Arguilez to Request No. 5, each 

demanding a copy of “any/all notices of criminal convictions [the 

responding Defendant] ha[s] received.” (ECF No. 109 at 102; ECF 111 

at 44; ECF No. 113 at 74; ECF No. 113 at 104). Request No. 6 to 

Defendants Arguilez, Silva, and Buenrostro similarly demand a copy of 

“any/all records of arrests you have received.” (ECF No. 111 at 4; ECF 

No. 113 at 74; ECF No. 113 at 104). Defendants object that the 

requests are vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, overbroad, seek confidential 

peace officer information and information protected by the official 

information privilege, and seek information available to the public. 

(Id.). Plaintiff has not shown how, for instance, a hypothetical 

misdemeanor conviction for drug possession has any relevance to this 

action. Defendants’ objections that these requests are overbroad and 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 22 of

 35
23 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

seek irrelevant evidence are sustained. As noted before, discovery may 

not be used as a fishing expedition into the affairs of an adversary. See, 

e.g., H-P-M Dev. Corp v. Watson-Stillman Co., 71 F. Supp. 906, 914 (D. 

N.J. 1947). In addition, Defendants correctly note that such 

information would be publicly available, such that Plaintiff can obtain 

the information by means less burdensome on Defendants. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motions to compel a further response to Request No. 4 

(Defendant Thompson), Request No. 7 (Defendant Russell), Requests 

Nos. 5 and 6 (Defendant Silva), Request Nos. 5 and 6 (Defendant 

Buenrostro), and Request Nos. 5 and 6 (Defendant Arguilez) are 

DENIED. 

5. Inmate 602s/Complaints Against Defendants for 

Misconduct or Excessive Force Against Inmates 

Plaintiff also demands “all inmate 602 Appeal/staff complaints” 

filed against Defendants “for misconduct, excessive use of force, or 

ordering or approving subordinate officer’s misconduct against prison 

inmates.” (ECF No. 109 at 103 (Thompson, Request No. 7); ECF No. 

113 at 73 (Request No. 3)). Defendant Thompson and Defendant Silva 

respond by producing redacted appeals, subject to objections that the 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 23 of

 35
24 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

requests invade privacy, lack relevance, and are compound, vague, 

ambiguous, overbroad, burden and oppression. Plaintiff did not explain 

in his papers why the redacted appeals that Defendants produced in 

response are insufficient. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel further response or further production. 

6. Civil Lawsuits Against Defendants By Inmates 

Plaintiff also demands records from all civil lawsuits filed against 

Defendants Arguilez, Silva, and Buenrostro by current or former prison 

inmates, including records showing the ultimate results of the cases 

(excluding Heilman’s cases). (ECF No. 111 at 45 (Request No. 11); ECF 

No. 113 at 75 (Request No. 11); ECF No. 113 at 105 (Request No. 11)). 

Defendants object that the requests are vague and ambiguous, 

irrelevant, overbroad, and seek information available to the public. 

(Id.). Indeed, civil lawsuits are a matter of public record, such that 

Plaintiff can obtain the information by less burdensome means. 

Defendants’ objections that these requests are overbroad and seek 

irrelevant evidence are also sustained. Discovery may not be used as a 

fishing expedition into the affairs of an adversary. See, e.g., H-P-M Dev. 

Corp v. Watson-Stillman Co., 71 F. Supp. 906, 914 (D. N.J. 1947). 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 24 of

 35
25 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Plaintiff has made no attempt to show how such broadly-described 

records are relevant to this action. In addition to Plaintiff’s failure to 

meet and confer in good faith, Plaintiff’s motion to compel these 

responses is DENIED on this basis. 

7. Records Pertaining to Inmate Allegations of 

Excessive Force In Ad-Seg Unit 

Request No. 12 to Defendant Arguilez calls for any records 

pertaining to inmate allegations that his subordinates used excessive 

force in the Administrative Segregation Unit. Defendant objected that 

the request is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, not specific as to time, 

irrelevant, and duplicative. (ECF No. 111 at 45-46). Indeed, the 

request overlaps significantly with other requests for inmate 

complaints, 602 appeals, and civil lawsuits against these Defendants, 

and thus is duplicative of those requests. The request is also overbroad 

because it is not restricted to allegations against these Defendants. Nor 

is it restricted to the times that these Defendants have been stationed 

in the Administrative Segregation Unit. Moreover, the request seeks 

irrelevant information, because it is not limited to allegations that have 

been substantiated. False allegations of excessive force have no 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 25 of

 35
26 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

relevance this action. Properly tailored, this request would seek only 

substantiated allegations of excessive force used by Defendants that 

Defendant Arguilez supervises. Plaintiff sought that precise category of 

documents in other requests, rendering this request duplicative. 

Accordingly, this request is DENIED. 

8. Request (Set Two) No. 1 to Defendant Paramo 

In this request, Plaintiff seeks 

Copies of any/all letters or correspondence from 

prison inmates to either yourself as warden of RJ 

Donovan Correct. Facility, or to the warden’s office 

during your tenure as warden of RJ Donovan containing 

complaints of either excessive force or misconduct by RJ 

Donovan Ad-seg unit correctional staff, or letters 

complaining that the specific inmate in question has not 

been permitted to file allegations on a prison grievance 

(602/inmate staff complaint-appeal) or excessive force or 

misconduct against RJ Donovan A.S.U. Correction staff 

when the 602 forms are either “screened-out” or go 

“missing” once submitted by the inmate. 

(ECF No. 131 at 35). Defendant objects that this request is compound, 

vague and ambiguous, overbroad, not specific to time, irrelevant, 

burdensome, oppressive, and seeks information that would violate the 

privacy of inmates who are not parties to this case. The Court sustains 

Defendant’s objections that this request is compound, so overbroad, 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 26 of

 35
27 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

irrelevant, and that the request calls for private information of third 

parties that may be confidential or privileged. Once again, the Court 

declines to permit Plaintiff to use discovery as a fishing expedition into 

the affairs of an adversary. See, e.g., H-P-M Dev. Corp v. WatsonStillman Co., 71 F. Supp. 906, 914 (D. N.J. 1947). Accordingly, the 

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel this response. 

9. Request (Set Two) No. 2 to Defendant Paramo 

In this request, Plaintiff demands grievances filed by inmates 

against Correctional Officers R. Davis, Bustos, Heddy, Miller, and 

Lopez for excessive force, misconduct, brutality, abuse, or harassment 

during Defendant Paramo’s tenure as warden. (ECF No. 131 at 35). 

Defendant objects that the request is irrelevant, compound, vague and 

ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, and seeks confidential 

and privileged information of third party peace officers. Indeed, none of 

the correctional officers listed in this demand are defendants in this 

action. Plaintiff offers no explanation for how inmate complaints 

against nonparties have any bearing on his allegations against these 

Defendants. The Court sustains Defendant’s objections to relevance 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 27 of

 35
28 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

and third party privacy. Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED

as to this request. 

c. Inadequate Response 

Amidst the hundreds of responses Plaintiff moves to compel, there 

is one interrogatory to which Defendant Buenrostro failed to properly 

respond. Interrogatory No. 8 to Defendant Buenrostro asks “Please 

explain if any Inmate 602 staff complaints/Appeals were filed against 

you for excessive use of force while you were assigned to Admin. 

Segregation and provide the Log numbers of those grievances.” (ECF 

No. 113 at 81). Defendant’s response is a word-for-word copy of the 

request. The Court finds that Defendant’s “response” is a cut-and-paste 

error rather than a willful failure to respond. Had Plaintiff properly 

meet and conferred with Defendants in good faith, or had Plaintiff 

narrowed down the requests at issue, Defendant most likely would have 

provided a substantive response—willingly and informally—upon 

learning of the clerical error. Plaintiff is the victim of his own discovery 

misconduct. 

Nevertheless, because Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, 

and the Defendant’s failure to respond to this request is clearly a 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 28 of

 35
29 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

clerical error, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further 

response by Defendant Buenrostro to Interrogatory No. 8 (which is in 

the motion filed at ECF No. 113). In granting this request, however, 

the Court finds good cause for excusing Defendant Buenrostro’s failure 

to timely object to this request, and finds that Defendant Buenrostro 

has not waived objections to this request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(b)(4)(permitting court to excuse, for good cause, a failure to timely 

object). In addition, the Court finds that it would be unjust to impose 

sanctions against Defendant Buenrostro or his attorney with respect to 

this request. Accordingly, Defendant Buenrostro is ORDERED to 

respond further respond to Interrogatory 8 within 14 days of entry of 

this Order. 

II. ECF 125: Motion to compel Defendants Silva, Buenrostro, 

Tyson, Fontan, Armstead, Ojeda, and Arguilez to Disclose 

Confidential Supplements (Attachment “C”) to the 602/InmateStaff Complaints 

 Plaintiff filed this motion to compel Defendants Silva, Buenrostro, 

Tyson, Fontan, Armstead, Ojeda, and Arguilez to produce the 

confidential Attachment C to the numerous 602/Inmate-Staff 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 29 of

 35
30 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Complaints on January 9, 2015. (ECF No. 125). Plaintiff’s motion is 

untimely as to these requests. All of the Defendants’ responses to 

document demands that this motion is based upon were signed by 

Defendants between October 29 and November 5. (ECF Nos. 109, 111, 

113, 125). Plaintiff fails to show that the motion is timely. Plaintiff 

does not provide the proofs of service for these responses or identify the 

date he actually received them. Even if Plaintiff received these 

responses two weeks after the Defendants signed them, Plaintiff’s time 

to file this motion on the latest-received responses expired on January 

5, 2015—several days before he constructively filed this motion. 

In addition, as to Defendant Armstead, Plaintiff failed to provide 

the document demands and responses served on Defendant Armstead. 

Absent a showing that the Plaintiff actually demanded the document he 

now seeks to compel, the Court cannot compel production. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of the 

confidential Attachment Cs to the 602/Inmate-Staff Complaints is 

DENIED. 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 30 of

 35
31 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

III. ECF 143: Motion to compel Defendant Paramo to provide a 

further response to Request For Admission No. 11 

 Plaintiff separately moves for a supplemental response from 

Defendant Paramo to Request for Admission No. 11, and for sanctions. 

(ECF No. 143). Request for Admission No. 11 asks: 

Do you admit or deny that CDCR policy and procedures 

mandates that an inmate claiming serious injuries 

should be immediately transported for medical care and 

treatment either by an ambulance or other 

transportation. 

(Id. at 2-3). Defendant Paramo responds: 

Objection—irrelevant and not likely to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence as Plaintiff’s complaint 

specifically states his medical care is not at issue in this 

case. 

(Id. at 3). Plaintiff contends that this response is incomplete and 

incorrect, because he has raised an Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference claim for lack of medical care in his Complaint in the 

Seventh Cause of Action. (Id.). The Complaint states in relevant part 

“[t]hat these acts, omissions, or conduct makes these supervisorial 

defendants personally responsible for violations of Heilman’s Eighth 

Amendment right when deliberately indifferent to Heilman’s health, 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 31 of

 35
32 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

safety and welfare in the use of excessive force against Heilman while 

working under color of state law.” (ECF No. 1 at 85:12-18; see also id. 

at 87:7-12). Indeed, the Complaint specifically alleges that “CDCR 

rules, regulations and just plain common sense would dictate that 

Heilman be transported by ambulance to the prison hospital for medical 

evaluation and treatment....” (Id. at 87:26-88:3). The Defendants 

correctly point out that the Complaint also states that Plaintiff is 

reserving the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical 

needs claim for another complaint in another case. Although it is 

unclear whether Plaintiff is actually bringing the deliberate medical 

indifference claim in this action,2 the excerpted allegations in his 

Complaint are sufficient to render Request for Admission 11 to 

Defendant Paramo relevant to this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel a further response is GRANTED, and Defendant 

Paramo is ORDERED to provide a supplemental response to Request 

for Admission No. 11 within 14 days of entry of this Order. 

                                                            

2 The Court does not opine in this Order whether Plaintiff’s Complaint 

states a claim for inadequate medical care under the Eighth 

Amendment. 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 32 of

 35
33 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

 Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Paramo and his 

attorney relating to this response is DENIED. The Court finds that 

Defendant’s failure to respond was justified because the Complaint 

states that Plaintiff intends to bring his medical indifference claim in 

another suit, such that it was not frivolous or clearly unreasonable for 

Defendant to believe that this request fell outside the scope of this 

action. 

IV. ECF 164: Motion to compel Defendant Paramo to Disclose 

Items Pursuant to Subpoena 

 In this motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel documents responsive to 

select demands (referred to by Plaintiff as “Subpoenaed Items”) in a 

subpoena he states that he served on Defendant Paramo pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. In support of his motion, Plaintiff provides his own 

handwritten version of the demands, objections, and his 

counterargument in favor of production. (ECF No. 164). Plaintiff does 

not provide the subpoena, proof of service of the subpoena on the 

Defendant, or the Defendant’s actual signed responses. 

The service of the subpoena demanding the document is a 

necessary prerequisite to a court compelling a nonparty’s obedience 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 33 of

 35
34 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

with a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 45; see e.g., James v. Wash 

Depot Holdings, Inc., 240 F.R.D. 693, 694–695 (S.D. FL. 2006); see also 

Roberts v. Americable Int'l Inc., 883 F.Supp. 499, 501 n. 2 (E.D. Cal. 

1995) (“[A party's] informal request for production of documents made 

at deposition is not recognized as an appropriate discovery request 

under the Federal Rules, i.e. such discovery vehicle does not exist under 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [The] motion to compel is 

inappropriate and is denied for this reason.”). In the absence of a 

subpoena, the other party has no duty to produce documents. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(D) (creating duty to respond). In the absence of any of 

these items proving that the subpoena was served, that the Defendant 

did in fact respond with objections, and that Plaintiff faithfully and 

completely restated the Defendant’s objections, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff has not met his burden. Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel further responses to these requests is DENIED. 

V. CONCLUSION 

 The Court DENIES the motions entered on the docket as ECF 

Nos. 109, 111, 125, 131, 133, 139, 164. 

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 34 of

 35
35 

13cv2984-JLS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the 

motion entered on the docket as ECF No. 113. Defendant Buenrostro is 

ORDERED to provide a further response to Interrogatory No. 8 within 

14 days of entry of this Order. The motion is DENIED as to all other 

requests at issue, and as to the sanctions request. 

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the 

motion entered on the docket as ECF No. 143. Defendant Paramo is 

ORDERED to provide a further response to Request for Admission 11, 

but the request for sanctions is DENIED. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: April 13, 2015

Case 3:13-cv-02984-JLS-AGS Document 179 Filed 04/13/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 35 of

 35