Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01299/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01299-9/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

RANDY LANGLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. GARCIA; G. COOK,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01299-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY AWARD OF EXPENSES 

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

(Docs. 39, 41)

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery responses. In his first 

motion, Plaintiff requests “production of original video/audio tapes/CDs/electronically stored 

evidence.” (Doc. 39.) The court construes this as a motion to compel under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37. In his second motion, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants’ responses to 

requests for production.

1

(Doc. 41.) Although Plaintiff attempts to bring this motion under Rule

26, (see id. at 1), the Court construes it as a motion brought under Rule 37. Defendants filed 

oppositions to the motions on August 5, 2019, and August 26, 2019. (Docs. 40, 42.) Plaintiff has 

not filed a reply to either opposition, and the time to do so has passed. See Local Rule 230(l). For 

the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions.

 

1 Plaintiff also seeks an extension of time in his second motion. (See Doc. 41 at 1, 3.) Plaintiff does not state what 

specific deadline he wishes to postpone, (see id.); thus, the Court is unsure for what matter Plaintiff seeks additional 

time. In any event, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a stay on October 28, 2019, staying all proceedings in this 

action until February 14, 2020. (Doc. 45.) The Court, therefore, denies Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time as 

moot.

Case 1:16-cv-01299-HBK Document 47 Filed 01/07/20 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

Parties may seek “discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Information “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. Within this general 

scope, a party may serve on any other party an interrogatory or a request to produce documents, 

electronically stored information, or tangible things that are in the responding party’s possession, 

custody, or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a), 34(a)(1). “Property is deemed within a party’s 

‘possession, custody, or control’ if the party has actual possession, custody, or control thereof or 

the legal right to obtain the property on demand.” Allen v. Woodford, No. 1:05-cv-01104-OWWLJO, 2007 WL 309945, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (citation omitted). The responding party must 

reply to the interrogatory or request within 30 days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b), 

34(b)(2). The responding party must answer each interrogatory or state that he will produce the 

requested documents, information, or things; or, the party must “state with specificity” the 

grounds for objecting to the interrogatory or request. Id.

If a party fails to answer to an interrogatory or to produce documents as requested, the 

party seeking discovery may file a motion with the Court to compel a response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(3)(B). The moving party must “state the relief sought” and provide “with particularity the 

grounds for seeking” the relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). Generally, the moving party must certify 

that she has conferred or attempted to confer in good faith with the responding party to resolve 

the dispute without court action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Local Rule 251(b). However, in 

prisoner cases involving pro se plaintiffs, the meet-and-confer requirements of Rule 37 and Local 

Rule 251 do not apply, though they are still encouraged. (See Doc. 32 at 2.)

II. DISCUSSION

a. Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel

In February 2019, Plaintiff served on Defendants interrogatories, requests for production, 

and requests for admission. (Doc. 42 at 2.) Defendants timely responded to Plaintiff’s discovery 

requests in April 2019. (Id.; see also Doc. 36 at 1.)

In supplemental responses, Defendants provided Plaintiff with a compact disc (CD) 

Case 1:16-cv-01299-HBK Document 47 Filed 01/07/20 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

containing seven videos of the incident underlying this action. (Myers Decl. No. 1, ¶ 2, Doc. 40-1 

at 1.) Plaintiff concedes that he received the CD, but “[i]t is [his] belief [c]ounsel ... and/or 

defendants deliberately distorted images in order to prevent proper viewing.” (Doc. 39 at 2.) 

Plaintiff further contends that the defense “knowingly withheld” additional security footage. (Id.) 

Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendants to provide the Court “the original security 

footage, in its original form,” as well as the footage allegedly withheld, “for veiwing [sic] to 

determine the validity and authenticity” of the videos. (Id. at 2-3.)

In his sworn declaration, Tulare County Assistant Sheriff Keith Douglass states that he 

provided Tulare County Counsel with all videos of the incident that he found while conducting a 

diligent search. (Douglass Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, 7-8, Doc. 40-2 at 2.) He states that he produced the 

videos in their original format, and none were manipulated or distorted. (Id., ¶¶ 5-6.) In her sworn 

declaration, Defendants’ counsel, Amy Myers, states that she placed the videos on a CD, per the 

instructions of Valley State Prison, and her office produced the videos in their original format. 

(Myers Decl. No. 1, ¶¶ 3-5, Doc. 40-1 at 2.) She states that neither she nor anyone in her office 

manipulated or distorted the videos. (Id., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff did not file a reply to Defendants’ 

opposition and supporting declarations.

In his second motion, Plaintiff requests the following “information withheld”: “security 

footage in [its] original state unedited,” two additional “camera positions,” and internal affairs 

(IA) investigation reports regarding the incident underlying this action. (Doc. 41 at 1.) In their 

opposition, Defendants state that they “fully responded to each of Plaintiff’s demands and 

produced all records in their possession, custody and control.” (Doc. 42 at 2.) Plaintiff again did 

not file a reply to Defendants’ opposition and supporting declaration.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not provide “the basis of his allegations that 

Defendants have purposefully altered and/or withheld evidence, nor how Defendants have been 

evasive or noncompliant.” (Doc. 42 at 6.) The Court agrees. In his first motion, Plaintiff provides 

no facts to support his allegations that Defendants distorted the videos they produced and

withheld additional footage of the incident, and he provides no evidence to counter the 

declarations of Ms. Myers and Mr. Douglass. Plaintiff simply states that it “is [his] belief” that 

Case 1:16-cv-01299-HBK Document 47 Filed 01/07/20 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

videos were altered or withheld to “discredit [his] case.” (See Doc. 39 at 2.) Such self-serving 

belief is inadequate for a motion to compel.

In his second motion, Plaintiff again provides no facts or evidence to support his 

allegations that Defendants altered videos and withheld footage and IA reports. Moreover, 

Plaintiff does not include with his motion Defendants’ responses to the discovery requests at 

issue, nor does he contend that such responses were evasive. Rather, Plaintiff simply asserts that 

Defendants withheld videos and reports, without stating the grounds for such assertions. (See

Doc. 41 at 1.) Such bare assertions, without more, are inadequate for a motion to compel. See 

Daniel F. v. Blue Shield of California, 305 F.R.D. 115, 122–23 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“The court does 

not consider any arguments based on factual assertions that are unsupported by evidence.”)

b. Defendants’ Requests for Attorney’s Fees

Defendants request that Plaintiff pay the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing

Plaintiff’s motions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5). (Doc. 40 at 4-5; Doc. 42 

at 10-11.) Defendants’ counsel states that her hourly rate is $110, and that she expended 4 hours 

preparing Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s first motion and 8 hours preparing their opposition 

to Plaintiff’s second motion. (Myers Decl. No. 1, ¶ 8, Doc. 40-1 at 2; Myers Decl. No. 2, ¶ 9, 

Doc. 42-1 at 2-3.) Defendants thus request $1,320 in reasonable expenses. (See Doc. 40 at 5; Doc. 

42 at 11; Defs.’ Mem. of Costs., Doc. 42-2.)

Rule 37 provides that, if the Court denies a motion to compel, it “must, after giving an 

opportunity to be heard, require the movant ... to pay the party ... who opposed the motion its 

reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(5)(B) (emphasis added). Thus, because the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions to compel, an 

award of costs is mandatory, unless the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motions were “substantially 

justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Id. Accordingly, the Court 

will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard before deciding whether an award of costs is 

mandated.

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-01299-HBK Document 47 Filed 01/07/20 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery responses, (Docs. 39, 41), are DENIED;

2. Plaintiff shall show cause by February 14, 2020,

2 why an award of expenses should 

not be imposed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 The present stay of this action will be lifted on February 14, 2020. (See Doc. 45.)

Case 1:16-cv-01299-HBK Document 47 Filed 01/07/20 Page 5 of 5