Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00808/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00808-13/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

NORRIS LEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BALLESTEROS,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00808-SKO (PC)

ORDER DECLINING TO CONSIDER 

UNTIMELY DISCOVERY DISPUTE AND 

GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE 

OF INCARCERATED WITNESSES

(Doc. 36)

I. Background

Plaintiff Norris Lee (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 17, 2012. This action 

for damages is proceeding against Defendant Ballesteros (“Defendant”) for acting with deliberate 

indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs on May 27, 2011, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment of the United States Constitution. This case is set for jury trial on August 18, 2015, at 

8:30 a.m. The parties appeared by telephone on July 21, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. for the trial 

confirmation hearing. 

II. Untimely Discovery Dispute

During the hearing, Plaintiff raised an issue regarding the timeliness of Defendant’s 

discovery responses. The deadline for the completion of all discovery, including filing motions to 

compel, was December 24, 2014. (Doc. 24.) At no time prior to the hearing did either party file a 

motion to compel or otherwise bring a discovery dispute before the Court. It is too late to do so 

Case 1:12-cv-00808-SKO Document 47 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 4
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

now -- almost seven months after the deadline expired. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly 

entered. . . .”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Regarding Plaintiff’s statement that 

the late-served discovery responses resulted in an inadequate opportunity to file a motion to 

compel, his failure to raise that issue seven months ago evidences the lack of any due diligence. 

Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court 

therefore declines to consider any issues regarding the timeliness of Defendant’s discovery 

responses. 

III. Motion for Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses

A. Background

The following factors generally govern the determination whether to issue a writ of habeas 

corpus ad testificandum directing the production of an inmate witness for trial: (1) whether the 

prisoner’s presence will substantially further the resolution of the case; (2) security risks presented 

by the prisoner’s presence; (3) the expense of the prisoner’s transportation and safekeeping; and 

(4) whether the suit can be stayed until the prisoner is released without prejudice to the cause 

asserted. Wiggins v. County of Alameda, 717 F.2d 466, 468 n.1 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Ballard v. 

Spradley, 557 F.2d 476, 480 (5th Cir. 1977)); Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 

1994). 

In this case, Plaintiff seeks to have inmates Marty Allen, currently incarcerated at Valley 

State Prison (“VSP”) in Chowchilla, and David S. Peasely, currently incarcerated at Correctional 

Training Facility (“CTF”) in Soledad, transported for trial. Defendant opposes the motion on the 

grounds that (1) the witnesses’ declarations are more than four years old and Plaintiff has not 

demonstrated either witness is currently willing to testify; and (2) inmate Allen’s declaration fails 

to demonstrate he has knowledge of relevant facts. 

B. Willingness to Testify Voluntarily

The Court is unpersuaded by Defendant’s position regarding the witnesses’ willingness to 

testify voluntarily. As an initial matter, inmates and parolees are not entitled to freely 

communicate with one another. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3139. Plaintiff’s present status is 

Case 1:12-cv-00808-SKO Document 47 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 4
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

unclear and to the extent he is not on parole, it is unclear at what point in time he became eligible 

to communicate with inmates Allen and Peasely. Tit. 15, § 3139(j) (“Inmates confined in 

departmental facility may correspond with former inmates. Prior approval . . . is required if the 

person was discharged from a facility within the past twelve months.”).

Additionally, and dispositive of the matter, a witness’s unwillingness to testify is not 

grounds to preclude him from being called to testify. “Both sides in a trial have the right to call 

witnesses, and the power to compel witness testimony is essential to our system of justice.” 

Barnett v. Norman, 782 F.3d 417, 422 (9th Cir. 2015). A judge cannot “allow a witness to refuse 

to testify because he would prefer not to answer a question.” Id. “The public’s interest in full 

disclosure and the fair administration of justice overrides concerns that testimony might be 

inconvenient, burdensome, or harmful to a witness’s social or economic status.” Id.

C. Relevant Testimony – Inmate Allen

Inmate Peasely’s declaration demonstrates that he was an eye and ear witness to relevant 

events. However, inmate Allen’s declaration is less clear and Defendant objects on that ground. 

Inmate Allen attested that he walked to the medical clinic with Plaintiff on May 27, 2011; 

that he has witnessed Plaintiff ask staff to give him his insulin injections; and that Plaintiff is 

afraid of needles. It was not clear from the declaration if inmate Allen saw or heard the interaction 

between Plaintiff and Defendant on May 27, 2011, but the fact he walked with Plaintiff to the 

clinic on that date suggested that he may have. During the hearing, Plaintiff clarified that inmate 

Allen saw his interaction with Defendant on that date and was therefore an eye and ear witness to 

events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to have inmate Allen 

transported for trial, along with inmate Peasely.1

///

///

///

///

 

1 The Court notes the lack of any evidence in the record regarding the second and fourth Wiggins factors. With 

respect to the third factor, neither inmate is incarcerated at a remote prison and given the proximity of VSP and CTF 

to the courthouse, no undue burden is imposed on prison officials in having to transport the witnesses to trial. 

Case 1:12-cv-00808-SKO Document 47 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 4
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

IV. Order

Based on the foregoing, the merits of the discovery dispute raised by Plaintiff will not be 

considered given its untimeliness, and Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of incarcerated 

witnesses Peasely and Allen is HEREBY GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00808-SKO Document 47 Filed 07/21/15 Page 4 of 4