Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00342/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00342-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A.C. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0342 DFL DAD P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has moved to compel defendant to produce documents in response to

Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of plaintiff’s first request for production of documents. Plaintiff argues that

his requests were within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and that defendant’s improper

objections abused the good faith of the discovery process.

Defendant requested and received a thirty-day extension of time to file opposition

to plaintiff’s motion. Counsel stated that she had determined there might be some documents

responsive to plaintiff’s requests that could be produced and also that documents produced in

another case might be responsive but the documents are voluminous, concern lockdowns in

addition to the one challenged in this case, and are not organized by date or housing facility. 

Counsel requested time to determine if any of the documents are relevant to plaintiff’s claim and

can be served on him, thereby eliminating or narrowing the issues to be resolved.

Case 2:05-cv-00342-JAM-DAD Document 36 Filed 01/31/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant makes the following points: 

defendant has no obligation to comply with the automatic disclosure provision of Rule 26 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; plaintiff was served with amended responses to his requests;

the amended responses provided plaintiff with a copy of the incident report on the riot that

precipitated the lockdown at issue in this case, as well as all available memoranda describing

events and actions taken by staff during the lockdown; defendant’s amended responses include

over 280 pages of reports and memoranda; in response to plaintiff’s interrogatories, plaintiff was

also served with a briefing report that summarizes all of the events that occurred during the

lockdown. Defendant contends that plaintiff’s motion should be denied as defendant’s

objections are otherwise well taken.

Plaintiff did not file a reply to defendant’s opposition. Plaintiff’s silence will be

construed as an indication that plaintiff is satisfied with defendant’s amended responses. To the

extent that plaintiff is not satisfied, the court sustains defendant’s objections that plaintiff’s

requests do not seek production of specific identified documents, most of the requests are

overbroad and burdensome, plaintiff appears to seek disclosure under the automatic disclosure

provision of Rule 26, and in some instances plaintiff seeks documents that do not appear to be

relevant and would not be admissible.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 12, 2006 motion to compel

discovery (#21) is denied.

DATED: January 29, 2007.

DAD:13

robi0342.mtc

Case 2:05-cv-00342-JAM-DAD Document 36 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 2