Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00752/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00752-21/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

DONALD JEFFERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. T. A. BENNGE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00752-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS, AND

AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 81)

Amended Discovery Deadline: 06/17/2010

Amended Pretrial Dispositive Motion

Deadline: 09/17/2010

Order on Motion to Compel

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Donald Jeffery,

a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed this action on June 15, 2006,

and it is proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against Defendants Cantu and Knight

for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On October 13, 2009, Plaintiff

filed a motion seeking to compel responses to his requests for the production of documents, and for

sanctions. Defendants filed an opposition on October 28, 2009, and Plaintiff filed a reply on

November 16, 2009.

The discoveryphase of this litigation commenced on October 2, 2008. (Doc. 39.) Therefore,

any discovery requests served prior to that date are invalid and the Court declines to further address

Plaintiff’s complaints that his discovery requests served prior to October 2, 2008, received no

1

Case 1:06-cv-00752-GBC Document 90 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 6
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

response. (Doc. 81, Motion to Compel, Ex. G.) Properly at issue are Plaintiff’s requests for the

production of documents, sets one and two, dated September 1, 2009, and September 8, 2009. (Id.,

Exs. C & D, court record pp. 26-28, 34-37.)

A. Standard

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

party’s claim or defense . . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). For document production requests, responding parties must produce documents

which are in their “possession, custody or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). 

If Defendants object to one of Plaintiff’s discovery requests, it is Plaintiff’s burden on his

motion to compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. Ordinarily, Plaintiff must inform

the Court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed

response, inform the Court why the information sought is relevant and why Defendants’ objections

are not justified. 

B. Request for Production of Documents, Set One

POD 1: Plaintiff seeks all records and documents generated in connection with the subject

matter of this lawsuit from December 3, 2003, to present.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This request is exceedingly overbroad and

vague, and is not drafted to seek only relevant information.

POD 2: Plaintiff seeks a copy of his third amended complaint and Defendants’ answer.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff is responsible for keeping copies

of documents filed in this action, and has made no showing that would justify ordering Defendants

to provide copies of filings in this action.

POD 3: Plaintiff seeks copies of all inmate appeals, citizens’ complaints, and lawsuits filed

by inmates in which assaults or batteries by Defendants Knight and Cantu, and Sergeant Martinez

are alleged, and Plaintiff seeks the locations of all such complaining inmates and witnesses.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This request is exceedingly overbroad. It

is not limited by time period or to factual situations similar to that alleged by Plaintiff. Further,

2

Case 1:06-cv-00752-GBC Document 90 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 6
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

Plaintiff has made no showing of relevancy or offer of proof as to how this information would be

used. Finally, Plaintiff is entitled to seek relevant, discoverable documents in existence. Under no

circumstance may Plaintiff seek to have Defendants create documents for him, such as his request

for a list of witness locations. 

PODs 4, 5, and 8: Plaintiff seeks a variety of personal information on Edger, Shaw, and the

individuals listed on his witness list (correct spelling of names, status and standing with CDCR for

Edger and Shaw, current and/or last known addresses, telephone numbers, and other information). 

(Doc. 81, Motion to Compel, court record p. 30.)

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. As to Edger and Shaw, this action is not

proceeding on any claims against Edger or Shaw, and Plaintiff has not made any showing of

relevance as to this information. With respect to the other witnesses, Plaintiff must show relevance,

which he has not done, and he is not seeking the production of any specific documents. Rather,

Plaintiff is seeking information in response to his questions, an inquiry not appropriately made in

a document production request. Defendants may not be compelled to conduct an investigation on

Plaintiff’s behalf and provide him with information not already set forth in a specific, existing

document. 

POD 6: Plaintiff seeks all medical reports and records, including but not limited to x-rays

and prescriptions, relating to injuries to Defendant Knight from the date of the incident (December

4, 2003) to present.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff’s request for Defendant’s medical

records in total for the past five years is overly broad and not limited to obtaining information

relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.

POD 7: Plaintiff seeks a list/cell roster showing the full names, CDCR numbers, and cells

of all inmates housed at CSATF, D Facility, Building 3, on the date of the incident (December 4,

2003), and the current locations and full contact information for the inmates.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff’s request must be narrowed to

documents which exist. Given Plaintiff’s familiarity with prison procedures, he should be aware of

what types of movement sheets or log books are kept which document inmates’ names and locations

3

Case 1:06-cv-00752-GBC Document 90 Filed 02/04/10 Page 3 of 6
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

for a particular building on a given date. Plaintiff should rephrase his request to net such

information. Further, and again, Plaintiff may only seek documents which exist. It is highly unlikely

that there is a responsive document setting forth the names of those inmates housed in Plaintiff’s

building on December 4, 2003, but listing their current addresses. If no such document exists,

Defendants may not be compelled to produce it.

POD 9: Plaintiff seeks all inmate appeals and complaints against former Defendant Edger.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff is not proceeding in this action

against Edger, and had made no showing that this information is relevant. 

C. Request for Production of Documents, Set Two

POD 1: Plaintiff seeks copies of all CDCR policies and procedures in effect on December

5, 2003, which related to the evaluation and care of CCCMS inmates who were suicidal.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This action is not proceeding on a claim

arising from Plaintiff’s medical or mental health care, and Plaintiff has made no showing that this

information is relevant.

POD 2: Plaintiff seeks copies of all CDCR policies and procedures in effect on December

5, 2003, which were applicable to medical and custody staff and which related to the handling of

situations in which an inmate stated he was suicidal or planned to harm himself, including training

received.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This action is not proceeding on a claim

arising from Plaintiff’s medical or mental health care, and Plaintiff has made no showing that this

information is relevant.

POD 3: Copies of lawsuits relating to mental health care, including court orders directing

CDCR and the Governor to fix or improve the mental health care delivery system in CDCR prisons.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This action is not proceeding on a claim

arising from Plaintiff’s medical or mental health care, and Plaintiff has made no showing that this

information is relevant.

POD 4: Copies of documents and books relating to CDCR institutional staff training

provided to custody and medical staff at CSTAF on the mental health care of inmates, including

4

Case 1:06-cv-00752-GBC Document 90 Filed 02/04/10 Page 4 of 6
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

training provided to Bennge, Shaw, and Martinez from January 2003 to present. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This action is not proceeding on a claim

arising from Plaintiff’s medical or mental health care, and Plaintiff has made no showing that this

information is relevant.

POD 5: Copies of Plaintiff’s mental health evaluations conducted after the incident,

including doctor’s and psychiatrist’s reports.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This action is not proceeding on a claim

arising from Plaintiff’s medical or mental health care, and Plaintiff has made no showing that this

information is relevant.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein. In light

of the denial of the motion, there is no basis for the imposition of sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. The

Court sua sponte extends the deadlines for the completion of all discovery and for filing pretrial

dispositive motions to allow Plaintiff to conduct one further round of discovery in light of the

information and admonitions set forth in this order. 

The discovery deadline shall be extended to June 17, 2010, which is more than adequate to

allow Plaintiff additional time to draft new discovery requests and file a motion to compel if

necessary. Plaintiff is cautioned that Defendants have forty-five days within which to respond to a

properly served discovery request. Therefore, Plaintiff must draft and serve his discovery requests

sufficiently in advance of June 17, 2010, to ensure that Defendants have forty-five days to respond

and Plaintiff has time to file a motion to compel, if necessary.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel and for sanctions, filed October 13, 2009, is DENIED;

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

is extended to June 17, 2010; and

///

///

///

5

Case 1:06-cv-00752-GBC Document 90 Filed 02/04/10 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. The deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is extended to September 17, 

2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 1:06-cv-00752-GBC Document 90 Filed 02/04/10 Page 6 of 6