Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00860/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00860-8/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

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

ERIC WHEELER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

K. ALICESON, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

SEAL AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

(ECF No. 46);

(2) DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO 

RETURN PLAINTIFF’S NOVEMBER 26, 

2014 DECLARATION TO PLAINTIFF;

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

PRESEVE EVIDENCE (ECF No. 44);

(4) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO 

COMPEL DISCOVERY (ECF Nos. 43 

and 69);

(5) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

COMPEL DISCOVERY (ECF No. 67);

(6) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS 

FOR SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM 

(ECF Nos. 45, 59, and 60);

(7) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR COURT ORDER 

REGARDING COPIES (ECF No. 48);

(8) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR COURT ORDER REGARDING 

REVIEW OF CENTRAL FILE (ECF No. 

52);

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 46
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

(9) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND 

PLEADINGS (ECF No. 47);

(10) GRANTING MOTIONS TO EXTEND 

DISCOVERY CUT-OFF (ECF Nos. 65 

and 67);

(11) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(ECF No. 77);

(12) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF EXPERT 

WITNESS (ECF No. 76); AND

(13) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR STATUS (ECF No. 66 and 82).

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE TO 

PROVIDE DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE 

TO ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE TO 

SEEK LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

AUGUST 14, 2015 DISCOVERY CUTOFF

SEPTEMBER 4, 2015 DEADLINE TO 

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) The action 

proceeds against Defendants Garcia, Goss, Trevino, Isira, and Coffin on Plaintiff’s First 

Amendment retaliation claim, and against Defendant Isira on Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment medical indifference and state law negligence claims. 

This order addresses the following motions:

On December 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his 

request for production of documents, set one. (ECF No. 43.) Defendants filed an 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 46
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

opposition. (ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 56.)

On December 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed an “Ex Parte Motion for a Court Order 

Prohibiting Defendant Garcia’s Removal, Destruction, and/or Concealing Essential 

Evidence” and a request that certain information be submitted to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 44.) 

Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 58.)

Also on December 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum. 

(ECF No. 45.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF 

No. 55.)

Also on December 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to seal documents and for a 

protective order. (ECF No. 46.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff 

filed a reply. (ECF No. 57.)

On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file an 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 47.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 53.) 

Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 61.)

On December 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing 

Defendants to copy documents for him. (ECF No. 48.) Defendants filed a response. 

(ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff filed no reply.

On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order requiring 

Defendants to make his central file available for review for a reasonable amount of time. 

(ECF No. 52.) Defendants filed no opposition.

On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum. 

(ECF No. 59.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 63.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF 

No. 64.)

On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum. (ECF 

No. 60.) Defendants filed no opposition.

On January 29, 2015, Plaintiff moved to extend the discovery cut-off by sixty 

days. (ECF No. 65.) Defendants filed no opposition.

On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the status of his motions. 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 3 of 46
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

(ECF No. 66.) Defendants filed no opposition.

On February 9, 2015, Defendants moved to (1) compel Plaintiff’s response to 

deposition questions, (2) compel Plaintiff to produce documents, and (3) modify the 

discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 

71.) Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 72.)

On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a further response to his 

requests for production of documents, sets one and three. (ECF No. 69.) Defendants 

filed an opposition. (ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 73.)

On April 20, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 

74.) Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 81.) The motion for summary judgment is not 

fully briefed and is not addressed herein.

On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of an expert 

witness. (ECF No. 76.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 79.) Plaintiff filed a 

reply. (ECF No. 80.)

On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty day extension of time to 

oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 77.) Defendants filed no 

opposition.

On May 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a letter complainING that his motions had not 

been ruled on. (ECF No. 82.)

These matters are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

Plaintiff currently is housed at Mule Creek State Prison but complains of acts that 

occurred at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, 

California. The relevant allegations in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint may be 

summarized essentially as follows:

Plaintiff suffers from depression, post-traumatic stress, and anxiety.

From June 7, 2010 to January 19, 2011 and from March 24, 2011 to June 15, 

2011, he was housed in the Enhanced Outpatient Program (“EOP”) portion of Facility GCase 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 4 of 46
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

1. On January 19, 2011, Plaintiff was involved in an altercation with another inmate, 

resulting in the use of force against Plaintiff by correctional officers and Plaintiff’s 

placement in Administrative Segregation. Plaintiff filed administrative grievances 

regarding this incident and other conduct by Facility G-1 staff. 

During May and June of 2011, Plaintiff observed staff misconduct on the part of 

Defendants, including improper utilization of computer resources. Plaintiff wrote a letter 

to the Warden detailing violations of CDCR standards. 

Defendants Garcia, Goss, and Trevino retaliated against Plaintiff for his 

administrative grievances and letter to the Warden. They made false entries in his file 

and chronos. Plaintiff also was transferred to non-EOP housing in an overcrowded gym 

where his mental health condition could not be effectively treated or accommodated. 

Garcia falsely accused Plaintiff of overfamiliarity, stalking females, and threatening 

behavior. These accusations led to a rules violation proceeding in which Plaintiff was 

found not guilty. Plaintiff claims Defendant Coffin was aware of this retaliation and failed 

to protect Plaintiff.

Defendant Isira, in concert with the other Defendants, also retaliated against 

Plaintiff by intentionally falsifying medical records, misdiagnosing Plaintiff as not 

suffering from a substantiated mental health disorder, providing unacceptable mental 

health care, and terminating Plaintiff’s EOP level of care, resulting in Plaintiff being 

housed in the gym.

Four months later, Plaintiff was examined by a non-party mental health provider 

who correctly diagnosed his mental health conditions and transferred Plaintiff back to 

the EOP level of care.

III. MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

A. Basis for Plaintiff’s Motion

The majority of Plaintiff’s motions discussed herein cannot be understood without 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 5 of 46
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

a brief overview of his theories against Defendant Garcia.1 According to Plaintiff, 

Defendant Garcia engaged in overfamiliarity with inmates throughout her time at 

CSATF. This overfamiliarity extended to Plaintiff. Plaintiff witnessed her overfamiliarity

with other inmates and viewed highly personal items and photographs belonging to 

Garcia and other inmates in Garcia’s office. Plaintiff apparently believes Defendant 

Garcia retaliated against him in part because he was aware of her overfamiliarity with 

inmates. Plaintiff himself was found not guilty of overfamiliarity on a rules violation report 

initiated by Defendant Garcia. He believes the not guilty finding supports his theory that 

the rules violation report and Garcia’s other conduct was retaliatory.

B. Arguments

Plaintiff’s motion to file documents under seal and for a protective order (ECF No. 

46) seeks to file under seal his own declaration describing Defendant Garcia’s “personal 

activities” during the workday, as well as personal information including her prior home 

address. He contends that his knowledge of this information is relevant to establish why 

Defendant Garcia retaliated against him, why he was denied treatment, and why he was 

removed from the EOP program. He appears to contend that, if Defendant Garcia was 

aware of the extent of Plaintiff’s knowledge of her activities, she would destroy 

evidence, specifically items given to her by inmates when she worked at CSATF. 

Additionally, Plaintiff claims the information is relevant to impeach Defendant Garcia. He 

believes the declaration he wishes to seal supports granting his other motions, 

discussed below.

Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate 

how disclosure of the declaration would be used for improper purposes, and the 

declaration otherwise would be discoverable. (ECF No. 49.) They contend that, because 

Plaintiff’s numerous other filings have made clear his intent to utilize items given to 

Defendant Garcia by inmates as evidence, this intention is no longer secret, and the 

 

1 The basis for Plaintiff’s motion and his claims against Defendant Garcia may be gleaned from his 

multiple filings in the public record. Discussion of these claims does not require disclosure of material in 

the document Plaintiff wishes to seal.

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 6 of 46
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

sealing of his declaration would accomplish no useful purpose. Although Defendants 

agree that Garcia’s home address should not be made public, they contend that it need 

not be included in Plaintiff’s declaration, or alternatively could be redacted. They also 

ask that Plaintiff be ordered to provide an unredacted copy of his declaration to defense 

counsel.

In reply, Plaintiff maintains that sealing is warranted to protect Defendant Garcia 

due to the personal nature of the information contained in the declaration. (ECF No. 57.) 

He argues that the declaration should not be given to defense counsel because doing 

so would allow Defendant Garcia to “cover-up her wrong doing” and, in any event, 

defense counsel is not entitled to know the “defense strategies” that Plaintiff may or may 

not use in this case. 

C. Ruling

Filings in cases such as this are a matter of public record absent compelling 

justification. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir. 2008). “Unless 

a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in favor of 

access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 

Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to overcome this strong 

presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate justifications for 

sealing that outweigh the historical right of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure. See id. at 1178-79.

The Ninth Circuit has determined that the public's interest in non-dispositive 

motions is relatively lower than its interest in trial or a dispositive motion. Accordingly, a 

party seeking to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion need only 

demonstrate “good cause” to justify sealing. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 

665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying “good cause” standard to all non-dispositive motions 

because such motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the 

underlying cause of action”). “The party seeking protection bears the burden of showing 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 7 of 46
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

specific prejudice or harm will result if no [protection] is granted.” Phillips ex rel. Estates 

of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). That party must 

make a “particularized showing of good cause with respect to any individual document.” 

San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 

1103 (9th Cir. 1999). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples 

or articulated reasoning” are insufficient. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 

470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 

(3rd Cir. 1986)).

Plaintiff’s belief that Defendant Garcia will destroy evidence if she is aware of the 

extent of Plaintiff’s knowledge of her activities is an insufficient basis to seal Plaintiff’s 

declaration. This contention appears to be based purely on speculation and is not 

supported by specific examples or articulated reasoning. Additionally, Plaintiff has made 

clear, through numerous filings in the public record, his intent to seek evidence of items 

given to Garcia by inmates. The more detailed and salacious allegations in Plaintiff’s 

declaration do not provide evidence that Garcia intends to destroy evidence. Indeed, 

and as discussed further below, it appears the evidence Plaintiff seeks was discarded 

by Defendant Garcia prior to her becoming aware of the instant litigation.

The parties are in agreement that Defendant Garcia’s home address should not 

be made public. However, the Court sees no reason why Garcia’s home address – or 

Plaintiff’s knowledge of that address – is relevant to resolution of Plaintiff’s nondispositive motions. Further, to the extent it may be relevant that Plaintiff knows

Defendant Garcia’s home address, Plaintiff may establish his knowledge through his 

own declaration without specifically stating the address. 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant is not entitled to information 

regarding Plaintiff’s litigation strategy is not entirely correct. Federal court is not a forum 

in which disputes are resolved through the element of surprise. The purpose of 

discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind man’s buff and more a fair contest with 

the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” U.S. v. Procter & 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 8 of 46
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

Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958). Just as Plaintiff may seek discovery of relevant, 

nonprivileged information from Defendants, so too may Defendants seek such 

information from Plaintiff.

Lastly, the Court cannot serve as a repository for the parties’ evidence (e.g., 

prison or medical records, affidavits, declarations, etc.). The parties may not file 

evidence with the Court until the course of litigation brings the evidence into question 

(for example, on a motion for summary judgment, at trial, or when requested by the 

Court). Although Plaintiff contends the declaration is relevant to his pending nondispositive motions, it appears he wishes to use the declaration to support his claim on 

the merits. If this is the case, Plaintiff must submit his evidence in opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal and for a protective order (ECF No. 46) will

be denied. Plaintiff’s declaration will be returned to him. If Defendants wish, they may 

seek a copy of the declaration through discovery in the time frame set out below.

IV. MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

On December 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed an “Ex Parte Motion for a Court Order 

Prohibiting Defendant Garcia’s Removal, Destruction, and/or Concealing Essential 

Evidence” and a request that certain “evidence” be provided to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 44.) 

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to prohibit Defendant Garcia from destroying art, greeting 

cards, drawings, poems, and letters given to her by inmates at CSATF from 2010 to 

2012. Plaintiff states that this evidence is necessary to impeach Defendant Garcia and 

to establish her history of misconduct and overfamiliarity with inmates. He contends that 

Defendant Garcia will destroy this evidence or remove it from her current office at 

California State Prison—Los Angeles (“CSP-LAC”), in Lancaster, California, if she is 

aware that Plaintiff seeks it. He also asks that Defendant Garcia be required to submit 

such items to her attorney for copies to be made and provided to Plaintiff. 

Defendants oppose the motion on the ground Plaintiff made no showing that 

Defendant Garcia is in possession of such items or likely to destroy them. By way of 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 9 of 46
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

offer of proof, Defendant Garcia states that she stopped working at CSATF on May 10, 

2013, and disposed of the items given to her by CSATF inmates at that time. Although 

she is prepared to testify regarding any items given to her, those items are no longer in 

her possession, custody, or control. If she were in possession of the items, she would 

provide them to Plaintiff in response to a proper discovery request, and would not 

destroy them. The request that Plaintiff be provided copies of the items circumvents the 

discovery process.

In reply, Plaintiff states that he is not seeking immediate production of the 

disputed items, but will pursue them in the course of discovery. He states that the items 

are still in Defendant’s possession, custody or control. 

Defendant Garcia states that the items at issue were disposed of in 2013.2

Plaintiff offers no proof to substantiate his assertion that the items remain in Garcia’s 

possession, custody, or control. In light of Defendant Garcia’s destruction of the items,

Plaintiff’s request to preserve them appears to be moot.

In any event, even if not moot, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. The motion is 

properly treated as a motion seeking an order to preserve evidence. “Federal courts 

have the implied or inherent power to issue preservation orders as part of their general 

authority ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious 

disposition of cases.’” American LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1071 

(C.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Pueblo of Laguna v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 133, 135-36 

(2004)). Courts have articulated different tests for determining entitlement to a 

preservation order but under either standard, Plaintiff fails to make the requisite showing 

 

2

“A party’s destruction of evidence qualifies as willful spoliation if the party has some notice that the 

documents were potentially relevant to the litigation before they were destroyed.” Leon v. IDX Sys.

Corp.,464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendant Garcia 

waived service in this action on June 5, 2014, (ECF No. 34) and there is no indication she otherwise was

aware these documents were potentially relevant to litigation when they were destroyed, on or around 

May 10, 2013. Additionally, it would appear the items have minimal, if any relevance to this action.

Defendant Garcia is not being sued for misconduct or overfamiliarity with inmates, but for retaliation. 

Although items indicating Defendant Garcia engaged in overfamiliarity with inmates would suggest that 

Plaintiff’s purported complaints against her were true, such items do not necessarily establish that 

Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff because of his complaints. In other words, Plaintiff may prove his 

case whether or not his administrative complaints against Defendant Garcia had merit. 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 10 of 46
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

of necessity. Id. at 1072 (discussing two standards for determining entitlement to 

preservation order). However, Plaintiff’s motion is not premised on any showing that 

relevant and existing evidence is in danger of being destroyed, but on his unsupported 

belief that Defendant Garcia will destroy evidence. Plaintiff has not shown that a 

preservation order is needed due to any actual risk that specific evidence will be lost or 

destroyed during the pendency of this action. Id. Generalized, unsupported concerns 

simply do not suffice. Id.

Furthermore, Defendants have a duty to preserve evidence. “A party’s

destruction of evidence qualifies as willful spoliation if the party has some notice that the 

documents were potentially relevant to the litigation before they were destroyed,” Leon,

464 F.3d at 959 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A federal trial court has 

the inherent discretionary power to make appropriate evidentiary rulings in response to 

the destruction or spoliation of relevant evidence.” Med. Lab. Mgmt. Consultants v. Am.

Broad. Cos., Inc., 306 F.3d 806, 824 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). The duty to preserve evidence, “backed by the court’s inherent power 

to impose sanctions for the destruction of such evidence, is sufficient in most cases to 

secure the preservation of relevant evidence.” Young v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:10-cv03579-JF/PVT, 2010 WL 3564847, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (citing Leon, 464 

F.3d at 959). To the extent any of the items at issue remain in Defendant Garcia’s 

possession, custody or control, Defendants’ duty and the Court’s inherent powers are 

sufficient to ensure the preservation of this evidence without further court order.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for preservation of evidence will be 

denied.

V. MOTIONS TO COMPEL

A. Legal Standard

The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith. Asea, 

Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir.1981). Parties may obtain 

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

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 11 of 46
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

12

defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to 

the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information 

need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

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. E.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P., 2012 WL 113799, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS (PC), 2008 WL 

860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the moving party 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. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack v. 

Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P., 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 

2011).

The court must limit discovery if the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs 

its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). “In each instance, the determination 

whether . . . information is discoverable because it is relevant to the claims or defenses 

depends on the circumstances of the pending action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory 

Committee’s note (2000 Amendment) (Gap Report) (Subdivision (b)(1)).

B. Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel

1. December 2, 2014 Motion

On December 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his 

Request for Production of Documents, Set No. 1. (ECF No. 43.) Having considered the 

motion, Defendants’ opposition (ECF No. 54), Plaintiff’s reply (ECF No. 56),3and the 

relevant discovery requests and responses, the Court rules as follows. Because 

resolution of Plaintiff’s first request requires some understanding of his remaining 

 

3 As with many of Plaintiff’s submissions, his 48-page reply attempts to address his claims on the merits, 

rather than responding to the discovery issues presented in his motion. These contentions are not 

properly raised and will not be addressed.

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 12 of 46
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

13

requests, his first request will be addressed last. 

a. Request Nos. 1 (#2)4, and 2

Request:

In Request No. 1(#2), Plaintiff sought:

All documents, including electronically stored information, 

deleted files, deleted matter, deleted information from 

computers, servers, printers, faxes of Rocio D. Garcia, 

M.S.W., located with in the workplace, work area, office(s) of 

Facility G, G-1 EOP Housing Unit, Section A, Garcia’s 

workplace computer server, printer, which sats [sic] right 

next to office glass window, next to office door, or first 

computer on individual’s right, as the individual steps thru 

office door, located in G-1 Building, section A, office of L. 

Goss, R. Garcia, including 2. All documents, web pages, 

web sites, maps from January 1, 2011 thru July 31, 2011,

and from June, 2012, thru March 30, 2013.

Request No. 2 is nearly identical to Request No. 1(#2), but pertains to Defendant 

Goss, rather than Defendant Garcia. The request also identifies a different location for

Defendant’s printer, and specifies a slightly different date range.

Response:

Defendants responded to both requests as follows:

Objection. The request is overbroad and not calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, in that the 

request includes all electronically stored information, deleted 

files, deleted matter, and deleted information from the 

responding party’s computer, regardless whether the 

documents pertain to Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s claim. The request 

further is unduly burdensome and potentially invades the 

privacy of the other inmates, as well as the responding 

parties. The request also potentially includes personnel 

information concerning the responding party, which are 

subject to the qualified privilege of official information and a 

federal common law privilege. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 

936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1991). Personnel files are 

also protected by the privacy rights of staff, including federal 

common law and applicable California statutes including 

Penal Code sections 832.7, 832.8, Government Code 

section 6254 and Civil Code sections 1798.24 and 1798.40 

and California Code of Regulations Title 15, section 3400. 

Personnel files also are protected under California Evidence 

Code sections 1040, et. seq., including section 1043.

 

4

Plaintiff apparently propounded two Requests No. 1.

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 13 of 46
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

14

Arguments:

Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ response constitutes an insufficient boilerplate 

objection. Plaintiff’s attempts to clarify his request, stating that he is not requesting other 

inmates’ medical or mental health files, but rather deleted information regarding the 

Defendants’ web searches, documents or information pertaining to Plaintiff, and 

documents or information (including personnel information) pertaining to Defendants. 

Plaintiff is not requesting what he characterizes as “personal information,” which, to 

Plaintiff, means date of birth, social security number, tax information, and names of 

relatives. He contends Defendants have no right of privacy in state owned computer 

resources or deleted files. He further claims that the requested information is relevant to 

prove Defendants’ misconduct, the constitutional violations at issue, to impeach 

Defendants’ credibility, and to demonstrate bias.

Defendants maintain that the request is overbroad because it seeks information 

unrelated to Plaintiff or this action. They state that they have produced all e-mails 

generated by Defendants and relating to Plaintiff, and that any documents potentially 

reflecting bias therefore have been disclosed. Any further electronic information would 

not pertain to Plaintiff or his care, would not be relevant, and would violate the privacy of 

other inmates. They further contend that the request is overbroad as to time because it 

includes documents generated long before Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct, and 

long after the alleged retaliation.

5

Finally, Defendants contend that the computers used 

by Defendants Garcia and Goss have been replaced and cannot be retrieved. Data 

maintained on the proxy server for the relevant period is no longer backed up and 

cannot be made available unless it can be restored. Restoring the data would cost 

approximately $20,000.

 

5 They also contend that Plaintiff’s letter to the Warden did not address the conduct of these Defendants, 

but other personnel. Plaintiff vigorously disputes this assertion. The Court cannot resolve this dispute at 

this stage of the proceedings and, in any event, doing so is not necessary to resolve Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel.

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 14 of 46
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

15

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s request is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Requiring Defendants to 

comply with the request would permit Plaintiff to engage in an improper “fishing 

expedition.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004). The question of 

whether Defendants Garcia and Goss improperly viewed websites for personal use 

during work hours has minimal relevance to this action, which proceeds against them 

only on Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation. Defendants have produced paper copies of e-mail 

correspondence relating to Plaintiff, which would appear to be the only relevant 

information contained in Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff specifies no other relevant 

documents. He provides no basis for assuming that “deleted documents” exist.

Discovery in this action does not provide a basis for Plaintiff to rifle through Defendants’ 

computers or the proxy servers of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation. Defendants will not be required to provide a further response to this 

request. 

b. Request No. 3

Request:

All documents, including electronically stored information, 

deleted Files, deleted matter, deleted information from 

computers, servers, printers, faxes used by Abdul Isira, Phy., 

located within the workplace, work area, office(s) (1.) That 

Adbul Isira used in November, December, 2012 at SATF 

S.P. (2.) The E. Facility Clinic office used by mental Health 

Staff, and any other E facility office used by mental health in 

July, 2011, thru November, 2011, and September 2013, thru 

January 31, 2013 (3.) Any other office, computer, fax, server 

used by A. Isira on any SATF Facility, including C.T.I. in 

October, November, December, 2012, and January, 2013, 

including any documents authored by A. Isira that was 

scanned and printed out by L. Maravilla, LCSW in E Clinic 

Mental Health office, E Facility, SATF S.P. in September, 

October, November, December, 2012, and January, 

February, 2013. 

Response:

Defendants objected on the same grounds presented in response to Request 

Nos. 1(#2) and 2.

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 15 of 46
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

16

Arguments:

Plaintiff’s arguments concerning this request are largely the same as his prior 

arguments. However, Plaintiff further specifies that he seeks information concerning a 

chrono written by Defendant Isira that allegedly was altered by Defendant Isira on 

December 4, 2012.

Defendants respond that the alleged retaliation by Defendant Isira occurred in 

2011 and documents from 2012 will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

In reply, Plaintiff attempts to explain further his basis for believing Defendant Isira 

altered chronos.

Ruling:

The Court is unable to discern the basis for Plaintiff’s belief that Defendant Isira 

altered chronos. Nevertheless, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that chronos authored by 

Defendant Isira in 2011 would appear to be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Alterations or 

edits to the 2011 chronos, even after the date of the alleged retaliation, also could 

potentially be relevant. Accordingly, Defendants will be ordered to conduct a diligent 

search of their records and to provide Plaintiff with copies of any and all chronos 

concerning Plaintiff and authored by Defendant Isira in 2011, including any later-edited 

or altered versions of those same chronos. Defendants shall file a notice of compliance 

in the record. To the extent Defendants believe any such chronos are too sensitive to be 

released to Plaintiff, they may seek relief from this order by filing the chronos for in 

camera review. 

The remainder of Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to this request 

will be denied on the same grounds stated with respect to Request Nos. 1(#2) and 2.

c. Request No. 4

Request:

All requested documents, information by plaintiff is in the 

name(s) of Eric Wheeler and all/each of the individual 

named defendants as each authored any type 

document/information directly pertaining to Eric Wheeler in 

2011, 2012 and 2013, in C Facility Mental Health offices, 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 16 of 46
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

17

Soars, Phy., Vickers, Phy. (4.) all documents including 

electronically stored information, deleted files, deleted 

matter, deleted information from SATF S.P. Records office of 

persons, defendants obtaining access to, checking out, 

reviewing Eric Wheeler’s, E-82064, Central (C-File) File in 

December 2010, January thru August 2011 and October 1; 

[sic] 2011, thru December 30, 2011, June 1, 2012, thru 

December 30, 2012, January 1, 2013, thru March 28, 2013, 

and November 1, 2013, thru February 27, 2014.

Response:

Objection. The request is overbroad as to time and unduly 

burdensome. The request is vague and ambiguous as to the 

terms “Soars, Phy., Vickers, Phy. (4.).” The request 

improperly seeks discovery from a non-party. To the extent 

that the requested information is contained in Plaintiff’s 

medical files, the request is unduly burdensome because it 

calls for the production of documents equally available to the 

propounding party.

Without waiving these objections, the responding parties 

state: the responding parties will produce all electronic 

documents generated by the Defendants concerning 

Plaintiff. (Attachment 1.) The responding parties also will 

produce documentation concerning access to Plaintiff’s 

Central File. (Attachment 2.)

Arguments:

Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ objections constitute impermissible 

boilerplate. He complains that Defendants did not have deleted information retrieved by 

computer technicians and therefore did not produce any deleted documents. He states 

that Soars and Vickers are Mental Health Supervisors. He states that he is not seeking 

information from his medical file. He appears to seek a May 31, 2012 chrono authored 

by Vickers. He appears to also seek an “Administration Records Office Log (sign in/sign 

out)” of Plaintiff’s C-File.

Defendants argue that the request is overbroad because it refers to dates well 

beyond the events at issue in this case, which took place in 2011. With respect to the 

disputed chrono, they state that Plaintiff’s claim to have reviewed it indicates it is 

contained in his medical file. To the extent Plaintiff is being untruthful and the chrono is 

not in Plaintiff’s medical file, it contains sensitive information that should not be released 

to Plaintiff. Defendants offer to submit the chrono for in camera review, along with a 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 17 of 46
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

18

declaration from a licensed mental health care professional explaining why the 

document should not be released. Finally, Defendants contend that they have produced 

the requested information reflecting who accessed Plaintiff’s Central File.

Plaintiff responds that he has seen the disputed chrono and it is not marked 

“confidential.” Plaintiff disputes aspects of the chrono and argues that it displays bias on 

the part of non-party Vickers.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s request is unintelligible. In the Court’s view, Defendants exceeded their 

discovery obligations by producing documents in response to this request. Defendant 

will not be required to provide a further response to this request.

To the extent Plaintiff intended in this request to obtain specific documents or 

information (such as specific chronos or logs), his request was not so worded. If Plaintiff

wishes, he may request specific chronos or logs within the extended discovery time 

frame discussed below. Plaintiff’s request for the disputed Vickers chrono is discussed 

below in relation to his February 9, 2015 motion to compel a further response to 

Request No. 9, Set 1.

d. Request No. 1

Request:

Request(s) includes all encrypted passwords-protected 

[electronically stored information (“ESI”)] (a) for any ESI that 

exists in encrypted format or is password protected, the 

producing party will provide the propounding party a means 

to gain access to those native files (by supplying 

password(s) etc.). (b.) The producing party will translate any 

data compilations/ESI included in the demand into 

reasonably useable form, in paper, in plain readable English.

Response:

Objection. The seeks [sic] information that is deemed 

confidential under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3321, the 

disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the safety of other 

inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security 

of the institution. Additionally, the production of confidential 

information is improper on the grounds that an inmate shall 

not have access to information designated confidential. Cal. 

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d).

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 18 of 46
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

19

Without waiving these objections, the responding parties will 

provide paper copies of any documents produced in 

response to these requests.

Arguments: 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ claim of privilege constitutes an insufficient 

boilerplate objection. He contends that he did not request paper documents but 

electronically stored information. 

Defendants respond that Plaintiff is prohibited from possessing information in an 

electronic form, such as a diskette, and therefore has no need for any passwords. By 

providing paper copies of the electronic information Plaintiff requested, Defendants 

eliminated the need to provide Plaintiff any passwords.

Plaintiff replies that he would like the electronically stored information to be given 

to CSATF computer technicians to retrieve the data and translate it into a “usable form” 

before it is provided to Plaintiff.

Ruling:

Defendants’ objections are sustained. As discussed above, the electronically 

stored information sought by Plaintiff is only minimally relevant to his claims, if relevant 

at all. Defendants have agreed to provide all relevant information in paper form. Plaintiff

therefore has no need for Defendants’ passwords. Defendants will not be required to 

provide a further response to this request.

e. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s December 2, 2014 motion to compel will be 

granted in part. Defendants will be required to provide Plaintiff with chronos authored by 

Defendant Isira in 2011, or to provide those chronos for in camera review, within thirty 

days of the date of this order.

2. February 9, 2015 Motion

On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a further response to his 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 19 of 46
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

20

Requests for Production of Documents, Sets One6and Three. (ECF No. 69.) Having 

considered the motion, Defendants’ opposition (ECF No. 70), Plaintiff’s reply (ECF No. 

73), and the relevant discovery requests and responses, the Court rules as follows.

a. Request No. 2, Set 1:

Request:

All photographs, videotapes, diagrams or other depictions of 

any defendant named, including plaintiff, in the above action 

or any location where any of the Complaint filed in the above 

action took place.

Response:

Objection. The request for photographs, videotapes, 

diagrams or other depictions of Defendants is not calculated 

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is 

overbroad, and invasive of Defendants’ privacy. The only 

photographs of Plaintiff in possession, custody or control of 

Defendants are contained in Plaintiff’s Central File, which is 

equally available to Plaintiff. Therefore, this request is unduly 

burdensome. Defendants are in possession, custody or 

control of a video interview of Plaintiff, conducted on January 

24, 2011, prior to the incident(s) which are the subject of this 

Complaint, which already has been shown to Plaintiff in 

connection with the Wheeler v. Allison action. Defendants 

contend that this video interview is not calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence.

Ruling:

The request is overbroad and not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant 

or admissible evidence. Additionally, Plaintiff’s request, stated in his motion, that 

Defendants create photographs or video of the layout of his housing facility exceeds the 

scope of a request for production of documents. Defendants objections are sustained.

b. Request No. 3, Set 1:

Request:

Please provide any and all writings containing any 

statements by any person concerning the defendants 

statements, communication, interviews, they made to CDCR 

Employees.

Response:

 

6 Plaintiff apparently propounded two separate Requests for Production, Set One.

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 20 of 46
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

21

Objection. To the extent that the request includes writings 

concerning other inmates, the request is overbroad and 

is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendants object that the request violates the 

privacy of the other inmates, and seeks information that is 

deemed confidential under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, section 

3321, the disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the safety 

of other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the 

security of the institution. Additionally, the production of 

confidential information is improper on the grounds that an 

inmate shall not have access to information designated 

confidential. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, section 3370(d).

Without waiving these objections, Defendants will comply 

with this request and will produce all non-confidential 

documents authored by Defendants concerning the events 

which are the subject of this action. (Attachment 1.)

Ruling:

Defendants state that they have produced all statements made by them 

concerning the events that are subject of this action. A review of Defendants’ privilege 

log reflects that documents responsive to this request were not withheld on privilege 

grounds. Plaintiff nonetheless speculates that all responsive documents were not

produced. This speculation is insufficient to warrant compelling a further response.

c. Request No. 4, Set 1:

Request:

Please provide any and all writings evidencing or reflecting 

any action, claim, lawsuit or demand for compensation made 

by defendants or against defendants within the last ten 

years.

Response:

Objection. The request is overbroad as to time and unduly 

burdensome. The request calls for public information equally 

available to Plaintiff. The request for claims for 

compensation made by Defendants is not calculated to lead 

to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Ruling:

The request for “any and all writings” relating to Defendants’ litigation history is 

overbroad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff may be able to request limited information 

regarding demands for compensation made against Defendants by propounding 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 21 of 46
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

22

interrogatories. The request for information regarding claims for compensation made by

Defendants is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. 

Defendants’ objections are sustained.

d. Request No. 6, Set 1:

Request:

Please provide all documents of investigations, interviews, 

reports by SATF S.P., hiring authority, CDCR, Risk 

Management Control, Health Care Services, internal affairs 

any CDCR Agency against all named defendants in 2011, 

2012, and 2013, including confidential documents.

Response:

Objection. The request is overbroad as to time, is unduly 

burdensome, and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. The request seeks information that is 

deemed confidential under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3321, 

the disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the safety of 

other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the 

security of the institution. Additionally, the production of 

confidential information is improper on the grounds that an 

inmate shall not have access to information designated 

confidential. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). To the extent 

that this request includes personnel files of correctional staff, 

including staff who are not parties to this action, personnelrelated files are subject to the qualified privilege of official 

information and a federal common law privilege. Sanchez v. 

City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Personnel files are also protected by the privacy rights of 

staff, including federal common law and applicable California 

statutes including Penal Code sections 832.7, 832.8, 

Government Code section 6254 and Civil Code sections 

1798.24 and 1798.40 and California Code of Regulations 

Title, 15 section 3400. Personnel files also are protected 

under California Evidence Code section 1040, et. seq., 

including section 1043.

To the extent that the request includes complaints asserted 

by other inmates against Defendants, the request is unduly 

burdensome and invades the privacy of these other inmates.

Without waiving these objections, Defendants have made a 

reasonable inquiry and conducted a diligent search for 

internal affairs investigations conducted by the hiring 

authority at SATF concerning Defendants, and disciplinary 

findings concerning Defendants, but are unable to comply 

with this request because such documents do not exist. 

Defendants will comply with this request and produce all 

non-confidential documents responsive to this request in 

their possession, custody or control. (Attachment 2.)

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 22 of 46
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

23

Ruling:

Defendants state that they have not been disciplined or subject to adverse action 

at any time during their employment at CSATF. They have made a diligent search for 

the requested records and have concluded that no such records exist. Defendants 

cannot be required to produce documents that do not exist. 

Defendants acknowledge that an investigation was undertaken by CDCR Lt. S. 

Ramirez regarding allegations made by Plaintiff in June 2011, but that the allegations 

did not directly name Defendants. They offer to submit the October 14, 2011 

Confidential Memorandum from Lt. Ramirez to Warden K. Allison for in camera review, 

but argue that it should not be produced to Plaintiff. 

In relation to this and other requests, discussed below, Defendants will be 

required to submit the October 14, 2011 Confidential Memorandum for in camera review 

within thirty days. 

e. Request No. 7, Set 1:

Request:

Please provide all mental health training materials, manuals 

for mental health employees, including defendants, at SATF 

S.P. CDCR, for 2010, 2011.

Response:

Objection. The request is overbroad as to time, is unduly 

burdensome, and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. The request seeks information that is 

deemed confidential under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3321, 

the disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the safety of 

other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the 

security of the institution. Additionally, the production of 

confidential information is improper on the grounds that an 

inmate shall not have access to information designated 

confidential. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d).

Arguments:

Defendants state that they provided Plaintiff with their I.S.T. training transcripts in 

response to a separate request for production. They contend that much of their training 

is irrelevant to this action and could compromise the security of the institution.

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 23 of 46
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

24

Plaintiff claims that training regarding patient-clinician confidentiality is relevant.

Ruling:

The instant action concerns Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants retaliated against 

him for filing grievances and complaints and, in the case of Defendant Isira, purposefully 

provided him with inadequate mental health care. The Court does not see the relevance 

of Plaintiff’s request for training materials regarding confidentiality. His request for all

training materials is overbroad. Plaintiff may review Defendants’ training transcript and 

identify specific training he believes to be relevant. He then may propound a request for 

those specific materials. However, Defendants’ objections to this particular request are 

sustained. 

f. Request No. 9, Set 1:

Request:

Please provide copies of any and all statements made by 

any witness(s) to the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint.

Response:

Objection. The request seeks information that is deemed 

confidential under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3321, the 

disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the safety of other 

inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security 

of the institution. Additionally, the production of confidential 

information is improper on the grounds that an inmate shall 

not have access to information designated confidential. Cal. 

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d).

Without waiving these objections, Defendants will comply 

with this request and will produce all non-confidential witness 

statements concerning the events which are the subject of 

this action. (Attachment 1.)

Arguments:

Plaintiff objects to two documents withheld from production on grounds of 

privilege: (1) the Confidential Supplement to Appeal Log No. SATF-E-11-02792; and (2) 

the Confidential CDC 128-C Chrono prepared by non-party A. Vickers, Ph.D., dated 

May 31, 2012. Plaintiff since has been provided a copy of the Confidential Supplement 

to Appeal Log No. SATF-E-11-02792. Defendants have provided a redacted copy of the 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 24 of 46
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

25

Vickers chrono with their opposition to the motion to compel, and offer to provide an 

unredacted copy to the Court for in camera review.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s desire to obtain the Vickers chrono appears to be based on his belief 

that it reflects Vickers’ intent to retaliate against him, or false information relayed to 

Vickers by Defendants in retaliation. Neither of these potential claims are at issue in the 

instant action. Having reviewed the redacted chrono and Plaintiff’s arguments in support 

of its production, the Court sustains Defendants’ objections. No further production is 

required.

g. Request No. 10, Set 1:

Request:

Copies of any and all notes, calendars, diaries, e-mails, 

internet communications, postings concerning plaintiffdefendants by each defendant in this action, including 

electronically stored information and tangible things, as 

defined by rule 34(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, 2014.

Response:

Objection. The request is vague, ambiguous and 

unintelligible concerning the terms “concerning plaintiffdefendants by each defendant in this action.” To the extent 

that the request calls for the production of writings made by 

Defendants which do not pertain to Plaintiff, the request is 

overbroad and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, 

Defendants will comply with this request and will produce all 

documents authored by Defendants concerning the events 

which are the subject of this action. (Attachment 1.)

Ruling:

Defendants have produced all documents authored by Defendants concerning 

the events at issue in this case. Defendants’ objections to further production are 

sustained. No further production is warranted.

h. Request No. 11, Set 1:

Request:

Copies of any and all correspondence sent to or received 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 25 of 46
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

26

from anyone concerning this action by defendants in 2011, 

2012, 2013, 2014.

Response:

Objection. The request is overbroad and violates the 

attorney client privilege. Without waiving these objections, 

Defendants have made a reasonable inquiry and conducted 

a diligent search and are not in possession, custody or 

control of any unprivileged documents sent to or received 

from anyone concerning this action, other than documents 

contained in Plaintiff’s Central File and medical files.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion seeks communications between Defendants and their counsel. 

Such communications are protected by the attorney client privilege. Plaintiff’s request 

for in camera review of these communications will be denied. No further production is 

warranted.

i. Request No. 1, Set 3:

Request:

All personnel files, documents, (excluding personal 

information, except their formal education), of all defendants, 

including all disciplinary files, training, performance 

evaluations, annual training audits, internal affairs reports, 

investigations, California Health Care Services, Risk 

Management, hiring authorities, Sacramento, Elk Grove, 

California, Mr. Aminibadi’s, investigator’s reports, 

investigations, and Lupe Cartagena’s request for 

investigations to Mr. Aminibadi in November, December 

2012, letters, reports, of Lupe Cartagena to Mr. Aminibadi.

Response:

Objection. The request is overbroad and is not calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is 

compound and, to the extent that the requested documents 

are in possession of Plaintiff, or contained in his Central File, 

the request is unduly burdensome. The request also 

potentially includes personnel information concerning the 

responding party, which are subject to the qualified privilege 

of official information and a federal common law privilege. 

Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th 

Cir. 1991). Personnel files are also protected by the privacy 

rights of staff, including federal common law and applicable 

California statutes including Penal Code sections 832.7, 

832.8, Government Code section 6254 and Civil Code 

sections 1798.24 and 1798.40 and California Code of 

Regulations Title, 15 section 3400.

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 26 of 46
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

27

Personnel files also are protected under California Evidence 

Code section 1040, et. seq., including section 1043. Good 

cause does not exist for the production of Defendants’ 

personnel files, as none of the Defendants were disciplined 

or subjected to adverse actions, either as a result of the 

events which are the subject this claim, or at any time during 

their employment at the California Substance Abuse 

Treatment Facility (SATF).

The request seeks information that is deemed confidential 

under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3321, the disclosure of 

which could: (1) endanger the safety of other inmates and 

staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security of the 

institution. Additionally, the production of confidential 

information is improper on the grounds that an inmate shall 

not have access to information designated confidential. Cal. 

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). The responding parties are in 

possession of a Confidential Memorandum, dated October 

14, 2011, from CDCR Lt. S. Ramirez to Warden K. Allison. 

The responding parties no longer are in possession, custody 

or control of a recorded statement obtained by Lt. S. 

Ramirez from Plaintiff, on or about July 26, 2011. The 

responding parties are in possession of Confidential 

Supplements to Appeals concerning Log Number SATF-E11-02792, a Confidential Information memo, dated July 23,

2011, from CDCR Lt. S. Alva to CDCR Captain E. Smith, 

and a Confidential Supplementary Report, dated January 26, 

2011, CDCR Lt. J. Rivero to CDCR Captain V. Ramirez.

The responding parties have conducted a reasonable inquiry 

and a diligent search but are not in possession, custody or 

control of requests from Lupe Cartegena to M. Aminibadi for 

an investigation, investigative reports prepared by M. 

Aminibadi, or investigative reports California Health Care 

Services, Risk Management.

Without waiving these objections, the responding parties will 

produce all non-confidential training records in their 

possession, custody or control. (Attachment 1; see also 

attached Privilege Log.) The responding parties also will 

produce all records concerning Plaintiff in possession of

Lupe Cartagena. (Attachment 2.) The responding parties 

also refer to e-mails which were addressed or copied to M. 

Aminibadi in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of

Documents, Set One, Bates, AGO 00001-00066, and in 

response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of DocumentsElectronic, AGO 0050-160.

Ruling:

Defendants will not be ordered to produce their personnel files, for reasons 

already stated. The remaining dispute concerning this request appears to focus on 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 27 of 46
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

28

items included on Defendants’ privilege log. Defendants were ordered, above, to submit 

the Confidential Memorandum from Lt. Ramirez to the Court within thirty days. 

Defendants also offer to submit a Confidential Information memo, dated July 23, 2011, 

from CDCR Lt. S. Alva to CDCR Captain E. Smith, to the Court for in camera review. 

Defendants will be ordered to do so within thirty days.

Defendants aver that they already have provided other privileged documents to 

Plaintiff in connection with Wheeler v. Allison, No. 1:12-cv-00861-LJO-DLB.

Accordingly, no further response regarding these documents is required.

j. Request No. 2, Set 3:

Request:

All documents relating to Eric Wheeler, defendants, 

prepared by, written by, written to Lupe Cartagena in 2011, 

2012, 2013 at SATF S.P.

(a) Wheeler’s letter 10-3, 2011, addressed to K. Allison, 

Warden, re express issues and/or concerns alleging staff 

misconduct SATF S.P. Lupe Cartagena’s reply letter 10-10-

2011.

(b) Wheeler’s letters 7-12-11, addressed to K. Allison, 

Warden, express issues and/or concerns alleging staff 

misconduct on Fac. G, SATF, this letter contains the same 

staff allegations as Wheeler’s September 25, 2011, letter 

mailed to the office of Internal Affairs headquarters. Lupe 

Cartagena’s reply letter 10-25-11.

(c) Wheeler’s letter 10-25-11, requesting the first name, and 

official title ___ Ms. Garcia, who works as a mental health 

social worker. Lupe Cartagena’s reply letter 10-31-11.

(d) Wheeler’s letter 11-2-11, express concerns regarding 

allegations of staff misconduct on Fac. G, SATF, appears a 

duplicate letter of 9-25-11. The Internal Affairs Unit (IA) at 

SATF S.P. was forwarded a copy of your complaint and has 

reviewed the info provided by you. Lupe Cartagena’s reply 

letter 1-27-12.

(e) Wheeler’s letter 10-29-12, addressed to Ralph M. Diaz, 

Warden, express issues and/or concerns alleging staff 

misconduct Fac. G. Lupe Cartagena’s reply letter 11-2-12.

(f) Wheeler’s letter(s), 602’s 12-2012 addressed to Lupe 

Cartagena information officer SATF express issues of 

appeals coordinator intentionally preventing/refusing to file 

staff complaints/letters on alleged staff misconduct. Lupe 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 28 of 46
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

29

Cartagena implemented correspondence that lead to Mr. 

Aminibadi, Risk Management, hiring authority, Elk Grove, 

CA, Sacramento, CA investigation, sending ___ 

female/investigator from Sacramento, CA to SATF S.P. to 

investigate, interview Wheeler in January, 2013, to 

investigate Rocio Garcia, Lillian Goss, Victor Trevino, Abdul 

Isira, Raymond Coffin.

(g) 602 complaint filed 7-20-11, with SATF S.P. internal 

affairs unit, by Wheeler, interviewed by Lt. Ramirez on July 

26, 2011, at 10 am – tape recorded, misconduct by G-1 EOP 

staff, Lillian Goss, Rocio Garcia, and Wheeler’s 7-1-11, letter 

to OIA.

(h) Wheeler’s letter 6-25-11, V. Ramirez, Fac. Captain/K. 

Allison, Warden/Florence Cote.

I request all of the above complete documents available.

Response:

Objection. The request is overbroad and is not calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is 

compound and, to the extent that the requested documents 

are in possession of Plaintiff, or contained in his Central File, 

the request is unduly burdensome.

The seeks [sic] information that is deemed confidential under 

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3321, the disclosure of which 

could: (1) endanger the safety of other inmates and staff of 

the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security of the institution. 

Additionally, the production of confidential information is 

improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have 

access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code 

Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). The responding parties are in 

possession of a Confidential Memorandum, dated October 

14, 2011, from CDCR Lt. S. Ramirez to Warden K. Allison. 

The responding parties no longer are in possession, custody 

or control of a recorded statement obtained by Lt. S. 

Ramirez from Plaintiff, on or about July 26, 2011. The 

responding parties are in possession of Confidential 

Supplements to Appeals concerning Log Number SATF-E11-02792, a Confidential Information memo, dated July 23, 

2011, from CDCR Lt. S. Alva to CDCR Captain E. Smith, 

and a Confidential Supplementary Report, dated January 26, 

2011, CDCR Lt. J. Rivero to CDCR Captain V. Ramirez.

Without waiving these objections, the responding parties will 

produce all records concerning Plaintiff in possession of 

Lupe Cartagena. (Attachment 2; see also attached Privilege 

Log.) The responding parties also will produce Plaintiff’s 

letter to Lt. Romero, dated June 25, 2011. (Attachment 3.)

Ruling:

The dispute regarding this request is the same as that above, regarding 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 29 of 46
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

30

privileged documents in response to Request No. 1, Set 3. Accordingly, the Court 

reaches the same ruling: Defendants are required to provide the October 14, 2011 

Confidential Memorandum from Lt. Ramirez to Warden Allison, and the July 23, 2011 

Confidential Information memo from Lt. S. Alva to CDCR Captain E. Smith, to the Court 

for in camera review within thirty days.

k. Request No. 4, Set 3:

Request:

All mental health training materials, manuals, IST training, of 

defendants.

Response:

Objection. The request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Without waiving these objections, the responding 

parties will produce all non-confidential training records in 

their possession, custody or control. (Attachment 1; see also 

attached Privilege Log.)

Ruling:

As noted above, Defendants have provided Plaintiff with their IST training 

transcripts. They contend that disclosure of all training materials is burdensome and 

irrelevant. Plaintiff claims that the training materials are needed to show that 

Defendants’ did not follow their training in their interactions with Plaintiff.

Defendants’ objections to this request are sustained, for the reasons stated 

above. As noted, if Plaintiff wishes, he may propound more specific discovery requests 

regarding particular aspects of Defendants’ training. However, Defendants will not be 

required to provide a further response to this interrogatory.

l. Request No. 5, Set 3:

Request:

All documents, e-mails, letters from defendant Rocio Garcia, 

CSP-Los Angeles County, Lancaster, CA., place of current 

employment from 2012, 2013 and 2014, pertaining to Erik 

Wheeler, any named defendant in this action.

Response:

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 30 of 46
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

31

Objection. This request is overbroad and is not calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 

waiving these objections, the responding parties previously 

produced all documents responsive to this request in 

Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One 

(AGO 50-57), and Response to Request for Production of 

Documents-Electronic. (AGO 49-160.)

Ruling:

Defendants state that they have provided all e-mails in their possession 

concerning Plaintiff. Plaintiff maintains he has not received e-mails from CSP-LAC or 

from all of the Defendants.

Defendants state that they have produced all of the e-mails responsive to this 

request. If Plaintiff did not receive e-mails from CSP-LAC or from all Defendants, the 

Court must conclude such e-mails do not exist. Defendants cannot be required to 

produce documents that do not exist. No further response is warranted.

m. Request No. 6, Set 3:

Request:

All documents of R. Garcia’s formal education.

Response:

Objection. The request is overbroad and invasive of the 

Defendant’s privacy rights. Without waiving these objections, 

the responding party will produce documents responsive to 

this request (Attachment 5.)

Ruling:

Defendants state that they agreed to provide copies of Defendant Garcia’s 

diplomas to Plaintiff as an accommodation. However, the request is otherwise 

overbroad, invasive of Defendant’s privacy rights, and unlikely to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence.

Plaintiff acknowledges he received Defendant Garcia’s diplomas. He states 

further documentation is relevant to impeach Defendant’s credibility and to show she 

violated patient-provider confidentiality.

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 31 of 46
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

32

Defendants’ objections are sustained. Documents beyond Defendant’s Garcia’s 

professional diplomas are not relevant to this action. The request is overbroad. No 

further response is required.

n. Conclusion

Defendants will be ordered to provide the October 14, 2011 Confidential 

Memorandum from Lt. Ramirez to Warden Allison, and the July 23, 2011 Confidential 

Information memo from Lt. Alva to Captain Smith, to the Court for in camera review 

within thirty days.

C. Defendants’ Motion to Compel

1. Arguments

Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s response to deposition questions and to 

compel Plaintiff to produce documents. (ECF No. 67.) Specifically, Defendants contend 

that Plaintiff intends to introduce evidence that he previously enjoyed a close 

relationship with Defendant Garcia, and that Garcia provided him with photographs of 

herself in her apartment and in various stages of undress. Plaintiff refused to produce 

the photographs at his deposition, stating that he gave the photographs to another 

inmate for safekeeping. He also refused to identify the inmate in possession of the 

photographs. Defendants ask that Plaintiff be compelled to produce the photographs 

and identify the inmate in possession of the photographs.

Plaintiff responds that the photographs are not in his control and that, in any 

event, he intends to proceed “with the art of surprise.” (ECF No. 71.) He states that he 

will not divulge any defenses, impeachment witnesses, or impeachment material, “until 

its time,” which, according to Plaintiff, is at trial. He also argues that the photographs 

themselves are unnecessary because Plaintiff himself can attest to their contents.

Defendants reply reiterates arguments presented in their initial motion. (ECF No. 

72.)

2. Analysis

Plaintiff cannot be compelled to provide documents that are not within his 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 32 of 46
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

33

possession, custody, or control. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Plaintiff states that he

does not have control of the photographs because he gave them to another inmate 

several years ago.

The absence of current possession and immediate control of documents properly 

sought in discovery is not justification for non-production of them; a party has a duty to 

secure and produce documents that are subject to his custody or control even if he 

does not actually have them in his possession. Plaintiff must provide a further sworn 

response to this Request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). If, in such further response, 

Plaintiff states under penalty of perjury that he has no right, power, authority or other 

ability to retrieve and produce the requested photographs, then he cannot be compelled 

to produce them. See U.S. v. Int’l Union of Petroleum and Indus. Workers, 870 F.2d 

1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989). Hence, Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to produce 

the photographs would have to be denied.

However, Plaintiff cannot be permitted to unilaterally deny current ability to obtain 

the photographs and then later, at trial, claim he regained that ability and attempt to 

introduce them into evidence without having provided them to Defendant via discovery.

Such a development could be expected to produce an Order barring Plaintiff from

introducing any such photographs into evidence in support of his claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(b)(2)(A)(ii). 

Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to provide a further answer to the 

request within thirty days of the date of this Order specifying whether he in fact believes 

he has or expects to have the right to direct production of the photographs from a third 

party or otherwise. If he says he does, they must be produced within thirty days 

thereafter. If he does not produce them as provided herein, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(b)(2)(A)(ii) will come into play.

Regardless, Plaintiff has no legal basis for refusing to provide the name of the 

inmate to whom he allegedly gave the photographs. Plaintiff’s argument that he is not 

required to divulge information regarding his defenses, impeachment witnesses, or 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 33 of 46
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

34

impeachment material, is without merit. Defendants are entitled to obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims or Defendants’ 

defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As the Court already has stated, Plaintiff is not 

entitled to proceed “with the art of surprise.” 

Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to identify the inmate to whom he gave the 

photographs will be granted. Plaintiff will provide the identity of said inmate to 

Defendants within thirty days. To the extent Defendants may wish to seek additional 

information concerning said inmate, Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and 

scheduling order to allow for further discovery on this issue is discussed below.

VI. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM 

Plaintiff has filed three motions for subpoenas duces tecum. Each will be 

addressed in turn.

A. Legal Standard

Pro se parties may be entitled to the issuance of a subpoena commanding the 

production of documents from a nonparty, subject to certain requirements. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b), 34(c), 45. The Court will consider granting such a request only if the 

documents sought from the nonparty are not equally available to Plaintiff and are not 

obtainable from Defendant through a request for the production. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. 

If Defendant objects to Plaintiff's discovery request, a motion to compel is the next 

required step. If the Court rules that the documents are discoverable but Defendant 

does not have care, custody, and control of them, Plaintiff may then seek a subpoena of 

a nonparty. Alternatively, if the Court rules that the documents are not discoverable, the 

inquiry ends. The Court will not issue a subpoena for a nonparty without Plaintiff first 

following the procedure outlined above. 

B. First Request

1. Arguments

The first motion seeks to subpoena Nathan Wilcox or the current Correctional 

Counselor II/Public Records Act Coordinator/Litigation Coordinator at California State 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 34 of 46
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

35

Prison Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”) to produce photographs of Defendant Garcia, 

her office, “workplace area,” and the surrounding walls. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff 

specifically seeks color photographs of any “prisoner art, poems, greeting cards, outside 

and inside of said card, any type drawings and prisoner crafts, letters located within 

[Defendant] Garcia’s office, workplace desk, computer at CSP.” Plaintiff asks the Court 

to appoint a court representative or Marshal to take the photographs on Plaintiff’s 

behalf. 

Defendants oppose the request on the ground that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate 

that Defendant Garcia is in possession of the materials Plaintiff alleges she possessed 

at CSATF or that these items are located in her office at CSP-LAC. (ECF No. 50.)

Plaintiff does not include with his request any request for production of documents 

indicating Plaintiff has requested such documents, nor any responses from Defendant 

indicating she has possession, custody, or control of these documents. Additionally, 

Defendants make an offer of proof that Defendant Garcia disposed of any items given to 

her by inmates at CSATF when she left that facility in May 2013. Accordingly, the 

burden of complying with the request would not be outweighed by any benefit. Lastly, 

Plaintiff has not shown he can pay the statutory witness fee.

Plaintiff responds that Defendant Garcia’s history of receiving, concealing, and 

destroying art, cards, and gifts given to her by inmates warrants the issuance of a 

subpoena. (ECF No. 55.) He asserts that she took some of these items home, and 

speculates that she kept those items that are “special.” Further, Plaintiff contends that 

Defendant may be continuing her “practice” of retaining such items from inmates in her

current office, which practice would be relevant to his claims. He asks that the witness 

fees be waived. He contends he is not required to propound a request for production of 

documents before seeking a subpoena.

2. Ruling

Nothing in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 authorizes the issuance of a 

subpoena for a third party to create evidence to support Plaintiff’s case. See Fed. R. 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 35 of 46
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

36

Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(iii) (a subpoena must “command each person to whom it is directed to 

do the following at a specified time and place: attend and testify; produce designated 

documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person's 

possession, custody, or control; or permit the inspection of premises”). Additionally, 

Plaintiff cites no statutory authority that would permit the Court to order that 

photographs be taken at public expense. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 

(9th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is 

proper only when authorized by Congress. . . .” (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 

426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976))). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion requesting that someone be 

ordered to take photographs on his behalf must be denied.

Furthermore, even if such a request were authorized, the information requested 

is not discoverable because it is irrelevant. Whether Defendant Garcia’s current office at 

CSP-LAC contains prisoner art or letters would not tend to make a fact of consequence 

in this action more or less likely. Such evidence is temporally remote from the events at 

issue and would not tend to show that Plaintiff filed grievances or complained of 

Defendant’s conduct, or that Defendant retaliated because of those complaints. 

C. Second Request

1. Arguments

Plaintiff’s second request seeks to subpoena the CSATF Business 

Services/State Computer Tech Services Department Supervisor(s) or current Warden to 

provide (1) written instructions for removal of state computer servers for the computers 

of Defendants and others in 2014, (2) computers and servers used to track those 

computers and their documents from 2011 to 2014, (3) information concerning the 

current whereabouts of those servers and their custodian, (4) inventory and accounting 

data for the computers and servers from 2011 to 2014. (ECF No. 59.) He also requests 

that the Marshal Service serve the subpoena and that fees be waived.

Defendants argue that the information requested is not relevant and that 

compliance with the request would be unduly burdensome. (ECF No. 63.) 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 36 of 46
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

37

Plaintiff responds that the information sought is “very relevant.” (ECF No. 64.)

Plaintiff alleges that he has raised allegations of misconduct by all staff (beyond just the 

named Defendants) in a separate action, Wheeler v. Alison, 12-cv-861-LJO-DLB. He 

further argues that the information is relevant because his complaints concerning staff 

misuse of computers form the basis of his retaliation claim. He also alleges that the 

computer information will show that Defendant Isira altered two chronos relating to 

Plaintiff. 

2. Ruling

Plaintiff’s argument that the information sought is relevant to a separate action is 

unavailing. He cannot seek discovery pertaining to that action in this case. 

To the extent Plaintiff argues the information is relevant to this action, his request 

will be denied for the reasons stated above in relation to his December 2, 2014 motion 

to compel.

D. Third Request

1. Arguments

Plaintiff’s third request seeks to subpoena E. Smith or the current Public 

Information Officer/Administrative Assistant at CSATF, and the Warden, to produce 

documents and reports relating to internal affairs investigations initiated as a result of 

Plaintiff’s complaints in 2011 and 2012; documents and reports initiated as a result of 

Plaintiff’s complaints to Lupe Cartagena, Administrative Assistant/Public Information 

Officer; and documents from CDCR headquarters and the Director of Mental Health 

pertaining to Defendants. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff asks that fees relating to the subpoena 

be waived.

Defendants filed no opposition. 

2. Ruling

Plaintiff has not shown that these documents cannot be obtained from 

Defendants through a request for the production. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. He arguably

has filed a motion to compel some of this information from Defendants. However, 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 37 of 46
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

38

Defendants’ objections to those requests have been sustained herein. Accordingly, his 

request for a subpoena will be denied.

VII. MOTIONS FOR COURT ORDERS

Plaintiff has filed two motions for court orders.

A. First Motion

On December 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing 

Defendants to copy documents for him. (ECF No. 48.) Specifically, Plaintiff requests 

that the Court order Defendants or the Facility B Librarian at Mule Creek State Prison to 

copy documents relating to this case. He asserts that the documents otherwise will be 

copied by inmate law library clerks. Plaintiff does not wish for his confidential documents

to be viewed by inmate clerks. He also contends that he wishes to make copies in 

excess of the 50-page limit imposed by Mule Creek State Prison. Plaintiff is willing to 

pay for the copies.

Defendants respond that they arranged for the Law Librarian at Mule Creek State 

Prison to make copies of Plaintiff’s documents at Plaintiff’s expense.

In light of Defendants’ response, Plaintiff’s request will be denied as moot.

B. Second Motion

Plaintiff requests a court order requiring Defendants to make his central file 

available for review for a reasonable time. (ECF No. 52.) According to Plaintiff, the file 

contains 2,100 pages and he is permitted to review his file in thirty minute increments. 

Defendants are or were employed at CSATF. Plaintiff currently is incarcerated at 

Mule Creek State Prison. Neither Mule Creek State Prison nor its staff is party to this 

action. The Court has no authority to order parties not before the Court to take action. 

Zepeda v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Servs., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th 

Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the 

parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine 

the rights of persons not before the court.”).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. Nevertheless, the Court will request 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 38 of 46
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

39

that defense counsel seek the assistance of the litigation coordinator at Plaintiff’s 

institution in resolving Plaintiff’s concerns. 

VIII. MOTIONS TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER

The Court issued a discovery and scheduling order, setting December 11, 2014 

as the deadline to amend pleadings, and February 11, 2015 as the discovery deadline.

(ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff and Defendants seek to modify the discovery and scheduling 

order in different ways as set out below. All of the motions were filed prior to the 

expiration of the applicable deadlines.

A. Motion to Extend Deadline to Amend Pleadings

Plaintiff requests a fourteen day extension of time to file an 

“amended/supplemental” complaint. (ECF No. 47.) He states that documents received 

during discovery reveal additional potential claims, specifically a conspiracy to retaliate 

against him and remove him from the EOP program. The allegations concern events 

occurring on April 30, 2014, after Plaintiff was transferred back to CSATF. He states 

these allegations constitute violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights.

Defendants oppose the motion on the ground that the events at issue occurred 

nearly three years after the events that are the subject of this action, and constitute a 

separate occurrence and therefore a separate claim. (ECF No. 53.) They point out that 

other deadlines in the case, such as the discovery cut-off and dispositive motion 

deadline, would need to be modified to accommodate any amendment. 

In Plaintiff’s reply, he attempts to explain the bases for his proposed additional 

allegations, which apparently arise out of a chrono written by Defendant Goss. (ECF 

No. 61.) The additional allegations are difficult to understand. Although Plaintiff clearly 

takes issue with the chrono, the Court is unable to discern what, if any, adverse or 

unconstitutional action Plaintiff was subjected to as a result of the chrono. Nevertheless, 

it is apparent that Plaintiff received additional documents during discovery that he 

believes support further claims.

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 39 of 46
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

40

The Court will grant Plaintiff fourteen days from the date of service of this order to 

submit an amended complaint. Nevertheless, Plaintiff must seek leave of the Court 

before his amended complaint may be filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). If Plaintiff wishes 

to amend, he must file a motion demonstrating that amendment is proper under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 15, and must lodge a copy of his proposed amended complaint 

with the Court. See Local Rule 137(c); cf. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 

F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing approvingly to Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 

85 (M.D.N.C. 1987)). 

The Court then will determine whether amendment is proper. Under Rule 

15(a)(2), the court should freely give leave to amend a pleading “when justice so 

requires.” The Court should apply this policy “with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser 

Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Morongo Band of 

Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F. 2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)). “If the underlying facts 

or circumstances relied upon by a [party] may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to 

be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits.” Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 

178, 182 (1962). However, a district court may deny leave to amend where there is 

“’any apparent or declared reason’ for doing so, including undue delay, undue prejudice 

to the opposing party or futility of the amendment.” Lockman Found. v. Evangelical 

Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 772 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Forman, 371 U.S. at 182). 

These factors are not to be given equal weight. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 

316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Prejudice to the opposing party must be given the 

greatest weight. Id. “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining 

Forman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave 

to amend.” Id.

Plaintiff is warned that his proposed amended complaint must contain a “short 

and plaint statement” of the grounds for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). In this regard, 

Plaintiff is encouraged to limit his proposed amended complaint to no more than 25 

pages. A proposed amended complaint that is exceedingly and baselessly lengthy will 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 40 of 46
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

41

be disregarded and will not be filed. Additionally, Plaintiff may not attempt to renew 

claims that have been dismissed with prejudice in the Court’s prior screening order. 

(ECF Nos. 26, 28.)

Plaintiff further is warned that that an amended complaint be complete in itself 

without reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. As a general rule, an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th 

Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves 

any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged.

B. Motions to Extend the Discovery Cut-Off

Plaintiff moved to extend the discovery cut-off by sixty days. (ECF No. 65.) 

Defendants filed no opposition.

Additionally, Defendants moved to extend the discovery cut-off to allow them to 

conduct discovery relating to their motion to compel, to the extent such motion was 

granted. (ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff opposed the motion to compel but did not specifically 

oppose the request for a discovery extension. (ECF No. 71.) 

Good cause having been shown, the discovery cut-off will extended to and 

including August 14, 2015. Discovery requests must be served sufficiently in advance of 

this deadline to permit time for a response and time to prepare and file a motion to 

compel.

C. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Oppose Summary Judgment

Plaintiff sought an extension of time to oppose the motion for summary judgment 

due to his pending discovery motions, resolved herein. (ECF No. 77.) Thereafter, on 

May 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed his opposition. Good cause having presented, the motion for 

extension of time will be granted, nunc pro tunc to May 21, 2015. 

In light of the rulings herein, Plaintiff also will be granted an opportunity to file a 

supplemental opposition to the motion for summary judgment, if any he has, following 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 41 of 46
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

42

receipt of additional discovery. The supplemental opposition is limited to twenty-five (25) 

pages, excluding exhibits. The supplemental opposition shall be filed on or before 

September 4, 2015. Defendants may file a reply to the supplemental opposition within 

seven days of the supplemental opposition being filed. 

In the event Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint is accepted for filing, the 

Court then will address the need for further discovery and/or dispositive motions on 

Plaintiff’s newly added claims.

IX. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS

Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint psychological and psychiatric experts to assist 

the Court and the trier of fact to understand Plaintiff’s underlying mental health care 

needs. (ECF No. 76.) Defendants oppose the motion on the ground the expert is 

requested to assist Plaintiff, rather than the Court. (ECF No. 78.) Additionally, 

Defendants contend that an expert would not be useful because Plaintiff’s claim is 

based on intentional, retaliatory misdiagnosis, rather than professional negligence. 

An expert witness may testify to help the trier of fact understand the evidence or 

determine a fact at issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702. Under Rule 706(a) of the Federal Rules of 

Evidence, the district court has discretion to appoint a neutral expert on its own motion 

or on the motion of a party. Fed. R. Evid. 706(a); Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long 

Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir.1999). Rule 706 does not 

contemplate court appointment and compensation of an expert witness as an advocate 

for Plaintiff. See Gamez v. Gonzalez, No. 08cv1113 MJL (PCL), 2010 WL 2228427, at 

*1 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2010) (citation omitted).

The appointment of an independent expert is to assist the trier of fact, not a 

particular litigant. See Joe S.Cecil & Thomas E. Willging, Court-Appointed Experts, at 

538 (Fed. Jud. Center 1994) (Rule 706 is meant to promote accurate fact finding where 

issues are complex, esoteric and beyond the ability of the fact finder to understand 

without expert assistance). Here, Plaintiff requests independent experts to establish 

elements of his case. Rule 706 does not exist to assist a party.

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 42 of 46
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

43

Appointment of an independent expert under Rule 706 should be reserved for 

exceptional cases in which the ordinary adversary process does not suffice. In re Joint 

E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 830 F.Supp. 686, 693 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (allowing 

appointment of independent expert in mass tort case). This case is not such an 

exceptional case.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

independent experts will be denied. 

X. MOTION FOR STATUS

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the reason his motions were not yet ruled on. 

(ECF No. 66.) Plaintiff also has submitted a letter complaining that his motions have not 

been ruled on. (ECF No. 82.)

The Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California carries one of the busiest dockets in the country. The Court is faced with 

cases similar to Plaintiff’s almost daily. There is a backlog of cases and resulting delay 

in addressing motions. Additionally, Plaintiff’s motions are numerous and lengthy.

Indeed, Plaintiff has submitted well over 1,000 pages of briefing and exhibits in this 

action. The Court herein has addressed Plaintiff’s pending motions. Any further motions 

from Plaintiff will be addressed in due course.

To the extent the status of Plaintiff’s motions is provided herein, his motion for 

status will be granted.

XI. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to seal and for a protective order (ECF No. 46) is 

DENIED;

2. The Clerks are directed to return Plaintiff’s November 26, 2014 declaration 

to Plaintiff;

3. Plaintiff’s motion to preserve evidence (ECF No. 44) is DENIED;

4. Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery (ECF Nos. 43 and 69) are 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 43 of 46
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

44

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants are required to provide Plaintiff with all chronos 

authored by Defendant Isira in 2011, or to provide such chronos to 

the Court for in camera review within thirty (30) days;

b. Defendants are required to provide the October 14, 2011 

Confidential Memorandum from Lt. Ramirez to Warden Allison to 

the Court for in camera review within thirty (30) days; 

c. Defendants are required to provide the July 23, 2011 Confidential 

Information memo from Lt. Alva to Captain Smith to the Court for in 

camera review within thirty (30) days; and

d. In all other respects, the motion is denied;

5. Defendants’ motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 67) is GRANTED IN 

PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Plaintiff is ordered to provide to the Court, within thirty days, a 

sworn statement specifying whether he believes he has or expects 

to have the right to direct production of requested photographs from 

a third party or otherwise. If he does have such a right, the 

photographs must be produced within thirty days thereafter.

b. Plaintiff is required within thirty days to identify the inmate to whom 

he gave photographs of Defendant Garcia;

6. Plaintiff’s requests for subpoenas duces tecum (ECF Nos. 45, 59, and 60) 

are DENIED;

7. Plaintiff’s motion for court order regarding copies (ECF No. 48) is DENIED 

as moot;

8. Plaintiff’s motion for court order regarding review of his central file (ECF 

No. 52) is DENIED;

9. Defendants’ are ordered to contact the litigation coordinator at Plaintiff’s 

institution to request assistance in resolving Plaintiff’s concerns regarding 

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 44 of 46
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

45

review of his central file;

10. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to amend pleadings (ECF No. 47) 

is GRANTED;

11.Plaintiff may seek leave to amend his complaint within fourteen (14) days 

of the date of this order;

12.Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ respective motions to extend the discovery cutoff (ECF nos. 65 and 67) are GRANTED;

13. The discovery cut-off is extended to and including August 14, 2015;

14.Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to oppose the motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 77) is GRANTED, and the deadline is extended nunc 

pro tunc to May 21, 2015;

15.Plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment on or before September 4, 2015;

16.Defendants’ may file a supplemental reply within seven (7) days of 

Plaintiff’s opposition;

17.Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an expert witness (ECF No. 76) is 

DENIED; and

18.Plaintiff’s motions for status (ECF No. 66 and 82) are GRANTED to the 

extent his motions are addressed herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 45 of 46
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

46

Case 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS Document 84 Filed 06/03/15 Page 46 of 46