Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00943/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00943-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donna Marie Biscoe, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

R.N. Garcia, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-943-PHX-ROS (LOA)

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling

Discovery, filed on July 29, 2012. (Doc. 41) Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff’s

Motion on July 16, 2012, asking that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion. (Doc. 43) 

I. Background

Plaintiff commenced this action on May 11, 2011, (Doc. 1) The Court screened her

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a) on December 14, 2011.

(Doc. 19) The Court allowed Plaintiff’s Count I claim against Defendants Robles, Butticci

and Garcia, alleging an Eighth Amendment violation for deliberate indifference to her

serious medical needs, to move forward and ordered the Defendants to answer the Complaint

as to Count I. The Court dismissed Count II as duplicative. The Court also dismissed the

fictitiously-named Defendant Doe, but stated that Plaintiff could seek leave to amend the

Complaint, in compliance with Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if she later learned

Defendant Doe’s identity. The Court, by separate order, has now granted Plaintiff leave to

Case 2:11-cv-00943-ROS Document 46 Filed 08/06/12 Page 1 of 11
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 -

amend to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 44) 

II. Discovery in Prisoner Cases

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .

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); see also

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Because discovery is

designed to define and clarify the issues in the case, it is not limited to the precise issues

raised in the pleadings. Sanders at 350–51. “The question of relevancy should be construed

‘liberally and with common sense’ and discovery should be allowed unless the information

sought has no conceivable bearing on the case.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603,

610 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Miller v. Panuci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 296 (C.D. Cal. 1992)). The

court may limit discovery if it determines the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative,

obtainable from a more convenient or less expensive source, the party seeking discovery had

ample opportunity to obtain the information sought, or the burden or expense of the

proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2).

Discovery in prisoner cases raises unique challenges. For example, “where otherwise

discoverable information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or

infringe upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests

in determining whether disclosure should occur.” Fields v. Banuelos, 2012 WL 2888734,

at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 13, 2012) (citing, among others, Robinson v. Adams, 2012 WL 912746,

at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012) (issuing protective order regarding documents containing

information which implicated the safety and security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, 2012

WL 761355, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for protective order and

for redaction of information asserted to risk jeopardizing safety and security of inmates or

the institution if released); Womack v. Virga, 2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec.21,

2011) (requiring defendants to submit withheld documents for in camera review or move for

a protective order)).

Case 2:11-cv-00943-ROS Document 46 Filed 08/06/12 Page 2 of 11
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 -

The district court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and discovery

disputes. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Childress v. Darby

Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir. 2004). 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. The moving party is required 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. See Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3;

Mitchell v. Felker, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. September 29, 2010); Ellis v.

Cambra, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. March 27, 2008).

III. Discussion

Plaintiff states that she had telephonic contact with Ms. Watanabe in the Attorney

General’s Office in an attempt to resolve their discovery disputes. At the outset, the Court

finds that because it has not screened the yet-to-be filed Second Amended Complaint, as

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), the Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion

to Compel with respect to discovery on issues related to other Defendants who have not yet

been served or on claims that are not currently before the Court. The Court will set out each

discovery dispute separately below.

Defendant Butticci

1. In her Request for Production of Documents #1, Plaintiff requested “[a] copy of

all complaints, ADOC [Arizona Department of Corrections] inmate letters, written

reprimands, grievances, internal investigations that’s [sic] been filed on you by the ADOC

officials and/or by Inmates.” Defendant responded that, among other things, the request was

“overbroad, vague and ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and sought confidential and

sensitive information.” (Doc. 43 at 2) Defendant asserts that inmates are not allowed to

possess personal and confidential information in the officers’ personnel files for security

reasons. Defendant further noted that the request is not limited in scope, time frame or

subject and the discovery sought is not relevant to the case at hand. Plaintiff states that this

Case 2:11-cv-00943-ROS Document 46 Filed 08/06/12 Page 3 of 11
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 -

information is relevant to verify if Defendant has a history regarding inmate complaints, etc.,

and/or whether internal investigations have been filed by ADOC against Defendant

regarding medical issues.

The Court agrees that the request is overbroad. It is not limited in time, scope or

subject. Additionally, the Court finds that the information sought may lead to the production

of confidential or privileged information. Plaintiff may elect to narrow the discovery request

to information that is related to her specific case and does not to contain confidential or

privileged information with respect to other ADOC employees or inmates. The Court will

deny Plaintiff’s request as to this production. 

2. In her Request for Production of Documents #6, Plaintiff requested Defendant to

“produce the ADOC’s Brent Lumley’s 28 Yard video cameras ASAP for plaintiff to view

the video cameras recordings starting from the time frames of January 21, 2011, to January

24, 2011, and to provide the full names of all ADOC’s officials found in the video

recordings.” Defendant first responded that this discovery request “was not reasonably

calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial that would have any bearing on the issue

currently before the court, was overbroad, and sought confidential and sensitive

information.” (Doc. 43 at 3) Defendant supplemented his response on June 5, 2012, to

indicate that ADOC was not able to locate any videos for this time frame and that such

videos, unless circumstances exist that would require saving, are recorded over on a regular

basis. 

Although Plaintiff appropriately limited the scope of her request in this situation,

Defendant has responded in a supplemental response that he has attempted to locate the

video recordings, but states that the alleged evidence is no longer in existence. He alleges

that the tapes are recorded over on a routine basis absent a compelling reason to keep the

tapes. If there is no evidence to produce, Defendant clearly cannot produce it and therefore,

the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request. 

3. In her Request for Production of Documents #9, Plaintiff requested Defendant to

produce “[a] copy of ADOC’s Arizona State Prison Complex Perryville Inmate by Housing

Case 2:11-cv-00943-ROS Document 46 Filed 08/06/12 Page 4 of 11
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 -

Count Sheet for facility Brent Lumley 28 Yard C-Pod for the month of January, 2011.”

Defendant responded that the request “was not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible

evidence at trial that would have any bearing on the issue currently before the court,

overbroad, and sought confidential and sensitive information.” (Doc. 43 at 4) Defendant

notes that Plaintiff seeks information for the entire month of January, when the alleged

conduct only covered four days, and further, that there are prison security concerns with

inmates possessing such information on other inmates. 

As with Plaintiff’s request for production #1, the Court finds that the request is overly

broad. It is not limited in time, scope or subject. Additionally, the Court finds that the

information sought may lead to the production of confidential, sensitive information or raise

other prison security concerns. Plaintiff may narrow the request to information that is related

to her specific case, in both time and relevance, and does not contain confidential or

privileged information with respect to other ADOC employees or inmates. The Court will

deny this request for production.

Defendant Garcia

1. In her Request for Production of Documents #8, Plaintiff requests “[a] copy of all

documents that refer, relates, pertains to the ADOC’s Dental Medical Protocol Procedures,

Medical Emergency - nonemergency Dental Care, Dental X-rays procedures, policies, rules,

and regulations that pertains to Dental Care for pregnant Inmates.” Defendant responds in

part that none of the current Defendants were responsible for Plaintiff’s dental care and/or

X-rays, and, therefore, the request is inapplicable to Defendant Garcia and the other

Defendants. (Doc. 43 at 4-5) 

The Court agrees with Defendant. As mentioned above, until the Court screens

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and other Defendants allegedly associated with

Plaintiff’s dental care are joined in this lawsuit, the Court will deny without prejudice

Plaintiff’s request for discovery related to her dental care issues. 

2. In her Request for Production of Documents #9, Plaintiff requests “[a] copy of any

and all complaints, reprimands, grievances, Investigations, Internal Investigations, and

Case 2:11-cv-00943-ROS Document 46 Filed 08/06/12 Page 5 of 11
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 -

findings filed against the Defendant, the R.N., Mrs. Garcia. Thus including Inmate Letters

filed.” Defendant responds that the request “was not reasonably calculated to lead to

admissible evidence at trial that would have any bearing on the issue currently before the

court, overbroad, vague and ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and sought confidential and

sensitive information.” (Doc. 43 at 5) Defendant asserts that the request is not limited in

time, scope or subject and raises prison security concerns.

The Court finds that the request is overly broad, and is not limited in time, scope or

subject. Additionally, the Court finds that the information sought may lead to the production

of confidential or privileged information. Plaintiff may narrow the request to information

that is relevant to her specific case and does not contain confidential or sensitive information

with respect to other ADOC employees or inmates. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request

as to this production.

3. In her Request for Production of Documents #10, Plaintiff requests “[a] copy of

any and all Complaints, reports, written reprimands, grievances, Investigations and Internal

Investigations filed against the ADOC’s Medical facility within the Arizona State Prison,

including Brent Lumley Yard Medical Facility and Medical Staff.” Defendant responds that

the request is “not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial that would

have any bearing on the issue currently before the court, overbroad, vague and ambiguous,

unduly burdensome, and sought confidential and sensitive information.” (Doc. 43 at 6)

Defendant further reiterates the objections raised in Request #9, immediately above. 

The Court finds that the request is overly broad, and is not limited in time, scope or

subject. Additionally, the Court finds that the information sought may lead to the production

of confidential or privileged information. Plaintiff may narrow the request to information

that is relevant to her specific case and does not contain confidential or sensitive information

with respect to other ADOC employees or inmates. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request

as to this production.

4. In her Request for Production of Documents #12, Plaintiff requests “[a] copy of

all Complaints, grievance, written reprimands, Inmate Letters, Informants, filed against the

Case 2:11-cv-00943-ROS Document 46 Filed 08/06/12 Page 6 of 11
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 -

Dental Staff(s) member(s) that provided Dental Care treatment to the plaintiff on January

21, 2011.” Defendant responded that the request is “not reasonably calculated to lead to

admissible evidence at trial that would have any bearing on the issue currently before the

court, overbroad, vague and ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and sought confidential and

sensitive information.” (Doc. 43 at 6) Defendant further reiterates the objections raised in

Request #9, raised above with respect to dental staff. 

The Court agrees with Defendant. As mentioned above, until the Court screens

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and other Defendants allegedly associated with

Plaintiff’s dental care are joined in this lawsuit, the Court will deny without prejudice

Plaintiff’s request for discovery related to her dental care issues. 

5. In her Request for Production of Documents #14, Plaintiff requests “[a] copy of

the plaintiff’s ADOC’s Evaluation Inmate/Religious-Diet (Non-Compliance) starting from

January 20, 2011, until May 12, 2011, including any and all documents that refers, relates

or pertains to the plaintiff’s ADOC’s pregnancy diet she was placed on starting January 20,

2011, until May 13, 2011.” Defendant objected to the request on the grounds that this

requests is “not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial that would have

any bearing on the issue currently before the court.” (Doc. 43 at 7) Defendant further

responds that there is no dispute that Plaintiff was pregnant and Plaintiff’s pregnancy diet

has no bearing on Defendant’s alleged conduct in this matter. 

The Court finds that the evidence Plaintiff seeks to discover is not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence that would have any bearing on

a claim or defense currently before the Court. Additionally, the Court finds that the request

exceeds the time frame and scope of the issue Plaintiff alleges. Plaintiff’s request seeks

information into May, 2011, long after her miscarriage occurred. The Court will deny

Plaintiff’s request on this issue. 

Defendant Robles

1. In her Request for Production of Documents #1, Plaintiff requested “[a] copy of

all complaints, Inmate Letters, written reprimands, grievances, Internal Investigations and

Case 2:11-cv-00943-ROS Document 46 Filed 08/06/12 Page 7 of 11
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 -

findings that has been filed on you by the Arizona Department of Corrections (‘ADOC’s’)

Officials and/or by Inmates.” Defendant responded that this request “was not reasonably

calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial that would have any bearing on the issue

currently before the court, overbroad, vague and ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and sought

confidential and sensitive information.” (Doc. 43 at 7) Defendant contends that the request

is not limited in time, scope or subject and that the type of information sought is confidential

in nature and raises prison security concerns. (Doc. 43 at 7-8) 

The Court finds that the request is overly broad and is not limited in time, scope or

subject. Additionally, the Court finds that the information sought may lead to the production

of confidential or sensitive information regarding prison security. Plaintiff may narrow the

request to information that is related to her specific case and does not contain confidential

or sensitive information with respect to other ADOC employees or inmates. The Court will

deny Plaintiff’s request as to this production.

2. In her Request for Production of Documents #3, Plaintiff requests “[a] record or

worksheet schedule of all the ADOC Officials, males and females, that worked with you at

ADOC’s Brent Lumley Unit on 28 Yard, morning shift from 6 a.m. till 2 p.m., during the

time frame of January 21, 2011, thru January 24, 2011, including their full name, full

description, and photos with their full names stipulated on their photos.” Defendant

responded that this request is “not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at

trial that would have any bearing on the issue currently before the court, overbroad, vague

and ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and sought confidential and sensitive information.”

(Doc. 43 at 8) Defendant further responds that a request for descriptions and photos of all

the prison officers creates a security risk to the officers. 

The Court finds that the request is overly broad and is not limited in time, scope or

subject. Additionally, the Court finds that the information sought may lead to the production

of confidential or sensitive information regarding prison security. Moreover, Plaintiff’s

request for photos raises serious security concerns with respect to the officers’ safety.

Plaintiff may narrow the request to information that is related to her specific case and does

Case 2:11-cv-00943-ROS Document 46 Filed 08/06/12 Page 8 of 11
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 -

not contain confidential or sensitive information with respect to other ADOC employees or

inmates. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request as to this production.

3. In her Request for Production of Documents #6, Plaintiff requests “[a] record of

ADOC’s Medical Protocol procedures.” Defendant responded that the request is “not

reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial that would have any bearing on

the issue currently before the court, was overbroad, vague and ambiguous as to scope and

subject, and obtainable from a less burdensome source.” (Doc. 43 at 9) Defendant Robles

further responded that this information had already been produced to Plaintiff and that any

other information she requested was either not related to her claims or is available in the unit

library. (Doc. 43 at 9) 

The Court finds that the request is overly broad and is not limited in time, scope or

subject matter. Plaintiff may narrow the request to information that is related to her specific

case and the issues before the Court. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request as to this

production.

4. In her Request for Production of Documents #8, Plaintiff requests “[i]nvestigations

and findings and written reprimands, grievances, informals, recommendations, complaints,

Inmate letters, Incident reports filed on ADOC’s Arizona State Prison Medical facility

including the stipulated filed by the Correctional Associations [sic].” Defendant responded

that the request is “not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial that

would have any bearing on the issue currently before the court, overbroad, vague and

ambiguous, and seeks confidential and privileged information. (Doc. 43 at 9) Defendant

further objects that Plaintiff has not identified which organization she is referring to, nor

does she connect the current Defendants to any medical facility or staff decisions. (Doc. 43

at 9) 

The Court finds that the request is overly broad and is not limited in time, scope or

subject. Additionally, the Court finds that the information sought may lead to the production

of confidential or sensitive information regarding prison security. Plaintiff may narrow the

request to information that is relevant to her specific case and does not contain confidential

Case 2:11-cv-00943-ROS Document 46 Filed 08/06/12 Page 9 of 11
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 -

or sensitive information with respect to other ADOC employees or inmates. The Court will

deny Plaintiff’s request as to this production.

5. In her Request for Production of Documents #9, Plaintiff requests “[a] record of

ADOC’s Arizona State Prison rules, regulations, policies and procedures on R & A

receptionist area (Brent Lumley Unit 28 Yard in ADOC), including information that refers,

relates, or that pertains to housing, feedings etc. of pregnant Inmates.” Defendant objected

that the request is “not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial that

would have any bearing on the issues currently before the court and was obtainable from a

less burdensome source.” (Doc. 43 at 10) Defendant further objects that it is not clear what

R & A Plaintiff is referring to and that if it involves feeding and recreation times, those times

are the same for pregnant and nonpregnant inmates and is unrelated to conduct of the

Defendants. (Doc. 43 at 10)

The Court finds that the request is overly broad and is not limited in time, scope or

subject. Plaintiff may narrow the request to information that is relevant to her specific case

and does not contain confidential or privileged information with respect to other ADOC

employees or inmates. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request as to this production.

6. In her Request for Production of Documents #10, Plaintiff requests “[a] copy of

plaintiff’s ADOC’s Master Record file.” Defendant objected that the request is “not

reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence at trial that would have any bearing on

the issue currently before the court, overbroad, and unduly burdensome.” (Doc. 43 at 10)

Defendant further objected that the master files are voluminous, and, among other things,

include confidential information, information related to the inmate’s sentencing and

disciplinary reports and information not relevant to the case at hand. (Doc. 43 at 10) 

The Court finds that the request is overly broad and is not limited in time, scope or

subject. Additionally, the Court finds that the information sought may lead to the production

of confidential, or sensitive information regarding prison security. Plaintiff may narrow the

request to information that is relevant to her specific case and does not contain confidential

or confidential information with respect to other ADOC employees or inmates. The Court

Case 2:11-cv-00943-ROS Document 46 Filed 08/06/12 Page 10 of 11
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 -

will deny Plaintiff’s request as to this production.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery, doc.

41, is DENIED in its entirety. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any additional requests for production of

documents by Plaintiff must be in complete compliance with this Order as well as the Rule

of Practice for the United States District Court for the District Court of Arizona (“Local

Rule” or “LRCiv”) 7.2(e) which provides:

Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, a motion, including its supporting

memorandum, . . . shall not exceed seventeen (17) pages, exclusive of

attachments and any required statement of facts. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented, must

hereinafter comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona. The District’s Rules of Practice may be found on the District Court’s

internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be found as

www.uscourts.gov/rules/.

Dated this 6th day of August, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-00943-ROS Document 46 Filed 08/06/12 Page 11 of 11