Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02405/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02405-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

JAMES ELLIS JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-02405-JD (NJV)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 226

Pending before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Have the Defendant United States 

Compelled to Produce the Following Documents. (Doc. 226.) Plaintiff seeks an order compelling 

a response to his Requests for Production numbers 2, 3, 5, and 7. Defendant the United States of 

America opposes the Motion. (Doc. 231.) For the reasons set forth below, the court denies

Plaintiff's Motion.

Request for Production No. 2.

Plaintiff requests the production of "a copy of all documents filed against the VA San 

Francisco Police Department that alleged misconduct." In responding to this request, Defendant 

stated that it had conducted a reasonably diligent search and had not located any responsive 

documents. Plaintiff has not now identified any documents that he believes exist and should have 

been produced. The court therefore finds no basis on which to compel Defendant to respond 

further to this request for production.

Case 3:13-cv-02405-JD Document 246 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Request for Production No. 3

Plaintiff requests the production of "all documents from hearings that took place where

plaintiff [was] accused of violent misconduct at VA San Francisco and VA Palo Alto." Defendant 

raised several objections and then indicated that it would produce "documents related to the orders 

of behavioral restriction placed on plaintiff in addition to police reports concerning plaintiff." In 

opposing Plaintiff's Motion, Defendant states that it has produced those documents. The court 

sustains Defendant's objection to producing journal entries for every one of Plaintiff's visits to the 

medical center on relevance grounds and on the ground that it would be unduly burdensome to 

produce these entries. (The court notes that Plaintiff references visits to the medical center dating 

back at least twenty years.) The court finds no basis on which to compel Defendants to respond 

further to this request for production.

Request for Production No. 5

Plaintiff requests the production of "all documents used from VA Palo Alto that will show 

that Plaintiff James Ellis Johnson had a behavioral problem from December 2007 to December 

2013." Defendant raised several general objections then stated that it would produce documents 

related to the orders of behavioral restriction placed on plaintiff. In opposing Plaintiff's Motion, 

Defendant states that it has produced documents related to Plaintiff's OBR and the notes in the VA 

medical records system regarding Plaintiff's history of misconduct. Plaintiff has not identified any 

documents that he believes exist and should have been produced. The court therefore finds no 

basis on which to compel Defendant to respond further to this request for production.

Request for Production No. 7

Plaintiff requests the production of "a copy of the VA San Francisco and VA Palo Alto

Patient Representative files on Plaintiff James Ellis Johnson dated from October 1993 to present."

Defendant raised several general objections and then stated that it would conduct a reasonably 

diligent search and produce responsive, non-privileged documents related to plaintiff's order of 

behavioral restriction or to the January 30, 2012 incident. In opposing Plaintiff's Motion, 

Defendant states that it has produced those documents. Plaintiff has not identified any documents 

that he believes exist and should have been produced. The court therefore finds no basis on which 

Case 3:13-cv-02405-JD Document 246 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to compel Defendant to respond further to this request for production.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2016

______________________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02405-JD Document 246 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 3