Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00362/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00362-4/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

BENITO REYES, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. SINGH, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STRIKE

(Doc. 27.)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 26.)

I. BACKGROUND

Benito Reyes (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

original Complaint, filed on March 3, 2011, against Dr. Chinyere Nyenke and Nurse Rose 

Martinez (“Defendants”), for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

1

 

(Doc. 1.)

On February 24, 2014, the Court issued a Scheduling Order establishing a deadline of 

October 24, 2014, for the parties to complete discovery, including the filing of motions to 

 

1 On June 13, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from this action, 

based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983. (Doc. 17.)

Case 1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 08/14/14 Page 1 of 6
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

compel. (Doc. 20.) The Scheduling Order required the parties to serve responses to written 

discovery requests within forty-five days after the request is first served. (Id. ¶2.) 

On July 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents from 

Defendants. (Doc. 26.) On July 23, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 

27.) On August 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. 28.) 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is now before the court. 

II. MOTION TO COMPEL

A. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b), 34, and 37(a)

Under Rule 26(b), A[U]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is 

as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to 

any party's claim or defense C including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, 

and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons 

who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any 

matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.2 “Relevant information need not be 

admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Pursuant to Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Aany party may serve on 

any other party a request to produce and permit the party making the request . . . to inspect and 

copy any designated documents . . . which are in the possession, custody or control of the party 

upon whom the request is served.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). A[A] party need not have actual 

possession of documents to be deemed in control of them.@ Clark v. Vega Wholesale Inc., 181 

F.R.D. 470, 472 (D.Nev. 1998) quoting Estate of Young v. Holmes, 134 F.R.D. 291, 294 

(D.Nev. 1991). AA party that has a legal right to obtain certain documents is deemed to have 

control of the documents.@ Clark, 181 F.R.D. at 472; Allen v. Woodford, No. CV–F–05–1104 

OWW LJO, 2007 WL 309945, *2 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 30, 2007) (citing In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 

 

2

AEvidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be 

without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.@ Fed. R. Evid. 401.

Case 1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 08/14/14 Page 2 of 6
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

F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir.1995)); accord Evans v. Tilton, No. 1:07CV01814 DLB PC, 2010 WL 

1136216, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 19, 2010).

 Under Rule 34(b), the party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing 

that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, or state an objection to the 

request, including the reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). Also, A[a] party must produce 

documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to 

correspond to the categories in the request.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(E)(I).

Pursuant to Rule 37(a), a party propounding discovery may seek an order compelling 

disclosure when an opposing party has failed to respond or has provided evasive or incomplete 

responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). A[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or 

response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). 

AIt is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required 

constitutes a waiver of any objection.@ Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 

F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981)). 

The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating Aactual and substantial prejudice@ from the 

denial of discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations 

omitted.). 

Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff requests a court order compelling Defendants to produce the documents 

requested in Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”), which consists of 

eight Requests. Plaintiff has re-stated the eight Requests for the court’s review and submitted 

exhibits including Defendants’ Responses, Defendants’ Amended Responses, and letters 

exchanged between Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants attempting to resolve discovery issues 

concerning the RFP’s. Plaintiff asserts that on March 17, 2014, he served Plaintiff’s First RFP 

upon Defendants’ counsel. (Declaration of Benito Reyes, Doc. 26 ¶3, Exh. A.) On May 1, 

2014, Defendants served their Responses and Objections to the RFP. (Id. ¶4, Exh. B.) The 

parties then exchanged letters, and Defendants responded by producing ten pages of documents 

in response to RFP No. 1, and by serving Amended Responses upon Plaintiff on June 6, 2014. 

Case 1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 08/14/14 Page 3 of 6
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

(Id. ¶¶5-7, Exhs. C, D, E.) The parties again exchanged letters, and on June 25, 2014, 

Defendants informed Plaintiff that they would provide him a copy of his medical records, as

requested, but that they stood by their objections to RFP’s Nos. 4 and 5. (Id. ¶¶8, 9, Exhs. G, 

H.) Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to produce documents in response to all eight of his 

RFP’s, arguing that Defendants made objections to every request, some which were boilerplate 

objections, and only provided ten pages of responsive documents. Plaintiff argues that 

Defendants’ objections on the grounds of privilege do not apply, because Plaintiff did not seek 

privileged information. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants failed to provide a privilege log. 

Plaintiff asserts that he has followed all court rules and provided over two hundred responsive 

documents to Defendants, in spite of his indigence and limited resources, and argues that 

Defendants are not taking Plaintiff’s requests seriously or producing documents responsive to 

RFP No. 7 as they indicated they would.

Defendants object to Plaintiff’s motion to compel on the ground that only two of 

Plaintiff’s requests are at issue, but the motion to compel is vague on the matter and seems 

much broader. Defendants also object on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with Local 

Rule 251, in that he made no effort to obtain a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion is premature and request that it be stricken by the 

court. 

Plaintiff replies that he attempted more than once to resolve the discovery disputes, and 

that he understood from the court’s Scheduling Order that Local Rule 251 does not apply to this 

case. Plaintiff argues that Defendants are incorrect that there are only two requests at issue, 

because Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to every request to which Defendants 

objected, asserting that some of Defendants’ objections are boilerplate objections. Plaintiff 

acknowledges that since he filed the motion to compel, Defendants have produced copies of 

Plaintiff’s medical records in response to RFP No. 6; however, Plaintiff believes there are more 

documents responsive to his requests that are not privileged and have not been produced.

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 08/14/14 Page 4 of 6
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

Discussion

First, Defendants are incorrect that Plaintiff is required to comply with Local Rule 251,

which requires the parties to confer and attempt to resolve their discovery disputes and prepare 

a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement before filing a motion to compel. As stated in the 

court’s Scheduling Order issued on February 24, 2014, “[u]nless otherwise ordered, Local Rule 

251 shall not apply” to this action. (Doc. 20 ¶5.) Therefore, Defendants’ motion to strike 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel as premature shall be denied.

Next, the court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating actual and 

substantial prejudice from the denial of discovery. While Plaintiff has properly submitted 

copies of his discovery requests at issue and Defendants’ responses to the discovery requests, 

Plaintiff fails to inform the court, for each disputed response, why Defendants’ responses are 

not justified. It is not enough to express dissatisfaction because Defendants objected to all of 

the requests, because some of the objections were boilerplate objections, and because Plaintiff 

believes there are other responsive documents to be produced. Plaintiff has submitted copies 

of letters exchanged between the parties; however, it is not the duty of the court to look through 

Plaintiff’s exhibits to find his arguments. Plaintiff bears the burden of addressing each of 

Defendants’ responses with clarity and specificity. Plaintiff’s motion to compel can be denied 

on this basis.

Nonetheless, the court has reviewed Plaintiff’s RFP’s and Defendants’ responses and 

finds Defendants’ responses to be sufficient. While Defendants made objections to all of the 

RFP’s, they also responded in RFP Nos. 1 and 3 that they produced non-privileged responsive 

documents in effect as of the date of the incident at issue in May 2010. Plaintiff has 

acknowledged that Defendants produced ten documents pursuant to RFP No. 1. Plaintiff also 

acknowledges that Defendants produced copies of his medical records, which are responsive to 

RFP Nos. 2, 6, and 7. With respect to RFP’s Nos. 4 and 5, the court sustains Defendants’ 

objections on the grounds of relevance. Plaintiff has not shown, and the court cannot find, that 

documents concerning another inmate’s medical care at Sierra Conservation Center in 

Jamestown, California, are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants arising from an 

Case 1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 08/14/14 Page 5 of 6
6

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

incident concerning Plaintiff at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, 

California. Even so, Defendants have also responded to RFP’s 4 and 5 that they made a 

diligent search and reasonable inquiry and found no non-privileged responsive documents. 

Plaintiff must accept these responses, as Defendants cannot be compelled to produce 

documents that do not exist. With respect to RFP No. 7, Defendants’ response is not a promise 

to produce documents, but rather a statement that they “will produce any responsive documents 

not subject to the objections.” (emphasis added.) (Doc. 26 at 31:24.) Therefore, Defendants 

are not required to produce documents in response to RFP No. 7 because of this statement. 

For these reasons, Defendants’ motion to strike and Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall 

be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff=s motion to compel, filed on July 14, 2014, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00362-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 08/14/14 Page 6 of 6