Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES PABLO PATTERSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN AND HOUSING SUPERVISOR, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01948-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF=S MOTION 

TO COMPEL PRODUCTION/INSPECTION 

(Doc. 65)

On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to requests for 

production of documents he propounded on Defendants. (Doc. 65.) Defendants filed an 

opposition to which Plaintiff replied. (Docs. 71, 75.)1 

I. The Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that in July of 2009 he was housed on single-cell status in the D Facility 

of Kern Valley State Prison, due to a lack of compatible cell-mates because of his membership in 

the "Northern" gang. (Doc. 19, 2nd AC, p. 7.) Plaintiff alleges that, prior to July 16, 2009, all of 

the named Defendants knew that there had been a "30 to 40 year old 'war' and conflict between 

'Northern' and 'Southern' Mexican gangs." (Id.) Because of this, the named Defendants "knew or 

 

1 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 

CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 81 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 10
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

should have known that if [a Northern and a Southern gang member were] housed together or 

staged in a cell or dorm together, violence would immediately break-out and a 'mele' [sic] would 

ensue." (Id.) 

On July 16, 2009, Plaintiff alleges that the named Defendants "illegally and unlawfully 

deliberately misclassified a 'Southern' Sereno gang member to be housed with the Plaintiff a 

'Northern' so that they could stage a gladiator areana [sic] type fight between Plaintiff and a 

known 'enemy.'" (Id., emphasis in the original.) Plaintiff alleges that Warden Lawless gave 

orders to Sgt. Finegan, who directed Officers Corona and Borbon to place the violent Southern 

inmate in the cell with Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that when the Southern gang member 

entered the cell, he immediately attacked Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff to sustain emotional distress 

and physical injuries to his face, back, and left hand. (Id., at p. 8.)

III. Production of Documents

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 allows a party to serve on any other party a request to 

produce "any designated documents . . . which are in the possession, custody or control of the 

party upon whom the request is served." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Documents are in the 

"possession, custody, or control" of the served party if "the party has actual possession, custody, 

or control, or has the legal right to obtain the documents on demand." In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 

F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir.1995). Accordingly, a party may be required to produce documents turned 

over to an agent, such as its attorney or insurer. E.g., Henderson v. Zurn Indus., 131 F.R.D. 560, 

567 (S.D. Ind.1990). Further, the responding party has a duty to supplement any responses if the 

information sought is later obtained, or the response provided needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(e). 

If Defendants object to one of Plaintiff's discovery requests, it is Plaintiff's burden in his 

motion to compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. In general, 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. 

///

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 81 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 10
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

A. Plaintiff's Disputed Requests for Production ("RFP")

RFP No. 1: 

Any/all documents showing who was on duty involving and arranging cell 

assignments of plaintiff and Robles together on July 16, 2009. Include approved 

rank sign offs involves... 

Defendants' Response:

Defendants cannot provide the requested documents because the assignment 

records for July 2009 are no longer maintained by the prison.

Ruling: Defendants cannot be ordered to produce documents which are no longer maintained by 

the Defendants or their employer. Documents are in the "possession, custody, or control" of the 

served party if "the party has actual possession, custody, or control, or has the legal right to obtain 

the documents on demand." In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir.1995). 

Defendants assert that they conducted a reasonable inquiry of documents in their custody and 

control and found that the documents response to this request for July 16, 2009 are no longer 

maintained by Kern Valley State Prison to be within their control. (Doc. 71, p. 2.) Defendants 

are not required to generate a detailed list of everyone they contacted and the results of such 

contacts in their efforts to obtain the desired documents as Plaintiff argues. Defendants cannot be 

ordered to produce that not within their control. Thus, Plaintiff's motion to compel further 

response/production to RFP No. 1 is DENIED. 

RFP No. 2: 

The name of Warden who was employed time of incident July 16, 2009 including 

his employment time schedule card for that day... including any comments regard 

incident. 

Defendants' Response:

Defendants object to this request to the extent that it asks for the name of the 

Warden on the ground that it is not seeking any documents and is, therefore, not a 

proper request for production. Defendants have not been able to locate any 

documents responsive to the request for the Warden’s time schedule card for July 

16, 2009.

Ruling: Plaintiff's motion to compel further response/production to RFP No. 2 is 

DISREGARDED since withdrawn by Plaintiff. (Doc. 75, 1:25-27.)

RFP No. 3:

All documents pertain to wardens responsibilities toward supervising and training 

his facility subordinates.

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 81 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 10
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

Defendants' Response:

Defendants object to this request on the ground that it is not likely to lead to 

discoverable information because there is no supervisory liability in a deliberate 

indifference case. Defendants further object to the request on the ground that it is 

overbroad as to scope and time because it would include all documents pertaining 

to all wardens training and supervising employees at all the prisons in all areas of 

their job duties for all time.

Ruling: Plaintiff's argument that he is entitled to the documents he seeks as "supervisory liability 

is carried out of [sic] individual [sic] gave direct orders, is involved and failed to correct or stop 

matter." (Doc. 65, 3:10-18.) However, Plaintiff is proceeding only on claims against the 

Defendants based on their personal participation in acts that allegedly failed to protect him from a 

known risk of serious harm per Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-837 (1994). (Doc. 21.) 

Plaintiff is specifically not proceeding on any supervisory liability claims. (Doc. 21, at 5:26-7:2.) 

Plaintiff is not proceeding on claims regarding sufficiency of the training of prison personnel. 

(See Doc. 21.) Thus, Defendants' objection of relevance is SUSTAINED. Further, RFP No. 3 is 

not specific as to time. It is overbroad and would be unduly burdensome to provide documents 

responsive to RFP No. 3 and arguably could require Defendants to produce every document 

regarding Wardens' supervisory and training responsibilities in the entire history of the CDCR. 

Thus, Defendants' objection that it is overbroad as to scope and time is also sustained. Plaintiff's 

motion to compel further response/production to RFP No. 3 is DENIED.

RFP No. 4:

Any/all documents manuals, guidelines, protocols, and procedures that 

staff are to follow regard screening and housing of inmates, including escorting 

handling and securing of lock downed inmates.

Defendants' Response:

Defendants object to this request on the ground that it is overly broad as to 

time and location as it could possibly refer to documents from any California 

prison. Defendants also object to the request as not likely to lead to any 

discoverable information with respect to the request for documents concerning 

“escorting handling and securing of lock downed inmates” because there is no 

allegation that Plaintiff or the other involved inmate were locked down. 

Defendants nevertheless refer Plaintiff to the California Code of Regulations, title 

15, section 3375 et seq. regarding the classification of inmates and chapter six of 

the Department Operations Manual, both of which can be found in the prison law 

library.

Ruling: Plaintiff moved to compel a further response because his time in the law library is 

limited and he intends to amend his allegations regarding the lockdown situation. (Doc. 65, 4:5-

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 81 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 10
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

9.) Defendant responds that the request is vague as to time and so "unnecessarily burdensome 

and overly broad" with minimal chance of revealing relevant evidence. (Doc. 71, 5:14-17

quoting Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 438-39 (9th Cir. 

1992).) However, Defendants apparently attached copies of the documents referenced in their 

response to RFP No. 4 when they served their opposition to this motion on Plaintiff. (Doc. 71, at 

5:18-20.) Plaintiff replied that it is not correct to say he does not raise allegations concerning a 

prison lockdown and that he raised a claim of endangerment in the 2ndAC at page 3, Section IV 

Statement of Claim. (Doc. 75, 2:9-17.) It is true that Plaintiff does mention a lockdown in the 

2ndAC, but his allegations specifically state that "[l]ong before Plaintiff's arrival to Kern Valley 

State Prison (K.V.S.P.) within year April/2009 K.V.S.P. had been on a lockdown due to a deadly 

riot between Northern and Southern Mexican gang faction [sic]." (Doc. 19, at p. 3.) It would 

appear that an extended lockdown because of a war between these two gang factions would 

provide evidence that all prison staff were aware that members from these opposing gang factions 

should not be celled together to support the claims that Plaintiff is proceeding on in this action. 

However, this does not necessarily make the documents Plaintiff seeks regarding the handling 

and securing of inmates who are on lockdown likely to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence in this action. Nevertheless, Defendants indicate they served a copy of the responsive 

documents on Plaintiff -- which moots this RFP. Thus, Plaintiff's motion to compel further 

response/production to RFP No. 4 is DISREGARDED as moot.

RFP No. 5:

Reports of minutes of staff meetings, trainings, how often regard every 

officers work positions. This involves request production no. 2 involvees (sic). 

Including documents how they are trained to familiarize themselves of gang 

awareness, activity, and safety precaution in a locked down environment.

Defendants' Response:

Defendants object to this request on the ground that it is overly broad as to 

time and scope because it includes all responsive documents for all officers at the 

prison for an indeterminate period of time. Defendants also object on the grounds 

that the request is incomprehensible.

Ruling: Plaintiff's motion to compel further response/production to RFP No. 5 is 

DISREGARDED since withdrawn by Plaintiff. (Doc. 75, 2:18-20.)

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 81 Filed 08/20/15 Page 5 of 10
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

RFP No. 6:

Any/all CDCR documents regard operation procedures, D.O.M. rules and 

regulations, policies that relate all the above questions.

Defendants' Response:

Defendants object on the grounds that the request is incomprehensible and overly 

broad.

Ruling: Plaintiff's motion to compel further response/production to RFP No. 5 is 

DISREGARDED since withdrawn by Plaintiff. (Doc. 75, 2:21-23.)

RFP No. 7:

All melee reports after riot between northern and southern gang factions. Include 

locations, number of involves, times, dates and how it happened. Do not have to 

be actual inmate incident reports. Just investigation notes, locations, dates as 

mentioned.

Defendants' Response:

Defendants object to this request on the ground that it is overly broad as to time and 

scope because it includes all responsive documents for all riots between northern and 

southern gang factions at all California prisons for an indeterminate period of time.

Ruling: In his motion, Plaintiff argues that it should have been known via common sense that he 

wants the records for all incidents "which caused KVSP to be put on lockdown within that 2 years 

after North and South riot and Plaintiff's incident July 16, 2009" to show "a pattern of incidents" . 

. . that Defendants "knew or had to know [sic] situation would cause Plaintiff injury." (Doc. 65, 

at 5:20-27.) 

Defendants oppose this motion by arguing that the prison does not classify any documents 

as "melee reports," that "reports of incidents that cause the prison to be placed on lockdown are 

not classified based on whether they involved inmates of different factions;" and in "order to 

obtain any potentially relevant documents, Defendants would first have to go through all program 

status reports for the time period in question, then cross-reference those documents with any 

investigations done by the prison’s investigative services unit" which would not likely uncover 

"relevant documents because any document talking about a riot between Northern and Southern 

Hispanic inmates would be in in [sic] the involved inmate’s prison central file" which are 

privileged and that "it would be unduly burdensome to go through the central files of all inmates 

housed at KVSP for the two year period in question." (Doc. 71, 7:14-28.) 

At the crux of this case is the allegedly known incompatibility of Northern Mexican gang 

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 81 Filed 08/20/15 Page 6 of 10
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

members and Southern Mexican gang members. What prison officials and correctional officers 

in general at KVSP knew about their incompatibility and when they knew it are relevant. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b). To that end, Program Status Reports ("PSRs") and all notes pertaining thereto, 

within two years before the date of incident in this action, that show any modification in program 

status at KVSP because of activity/altercations between Mexican gangs are relevant and should 

be produced to Plaintiff. Further, all investigation notations regarding those PSRs, both prior to 

the modification in program should be produced to Plaintiff. PSRs and the notations of 

investigations thereon are not part of any inmate's C-File; rather they are administrative records. 

(See e.g., Avila v. Cate, et al.,21:09-cv-00918-LJO-SKO, Doc. 58, pp. 1-13.) 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 -- i.e. from a defendant's 

employer. Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309945, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2007). 

Finally, defense counsel's representation that "any documents talking about a riot between 

Northern and Southern Hispanic inmates would be in in [sic] the involved inmate's prison central 

file" as well as the suggestion that PSRs do not show whether they involved inmates of different 

factions/races are inconsistent with CDCR's processes and are not well taken. PSRs have been 

submitted in numerous cases in this District and it is noted that Part A and Part B specifically 

show whether program is modified, lockdown, or state of emergency restriction is/was imposed, 

the area affected, the race of inmates affected, and the reason for the program change which 

includes a box to be checked for "Riot/Disturbance." (See e.g., Avila, 1:09-cv-00918-LJO-SKO, 

at Doc. 58-2, pp. 6-50.) 

Thus, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response/production to RFP No. 7 is 

GRANTED to the extent that PSRs for two years before the incident and all notes pertaining 

thereto that show any modification in program status at KVSP because of activity/altercations 

between Mexican gangs as well as all investigation notations regarding those PSRs (subject to 

redaction of identifying information for the safety/security of staff and/or inmates) are to be 

 

2

Judicial notice is allowed and may be taken of documents on file in federal or state courts. Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 

201, 28 U.S.C.A.; Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (2012).

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 81 Filed 08/20/15 Page 7 of 10
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

produced to Plaintiff.

RFP No. 8:

Any/all staff investigation questioning statements, photographs of evidence 

plaintiff was never provided regard incident July 16, 2009. 

Defendants' Response: 

Plaintiff may view the pictures taken after the July 16, 2009 incident by making 

an appointment with the litigation coordinator at Mule Creek State Prison to do 

so. There are no other responsive documents.

Ruling: Plaintiff argues that staff investigations will be disputed at trial and that he will need 

copies of the photographs to argue the distance in relation to who may have overheard the 

incident when it occurred. Defendants respond that they have made the only responsive 

documents available to Plaintiff via the litigation coordinator at the facility where he is currently 

incarcerated. Plaintiff replied that he needs actual photos to prepare his approach for trial of this 

action. 

Assuming photos were taken during the investigation, undoubtedly, Defendants will 

produce color, photo-quality copies for use as exhibits at trial. Thus, either Defendants will 

provide copies of the photos for Plaintiff’s use3or they must ensure that they are made available 

to Plaintiff when he visits the law library. The Litigation Coordinator is free to develop a system 

allowing Plaintiff to request the photos within a reasonable time in advance of his law library 

visit. Thus, to this extent, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response/production to RFP No. 8

is GRANTED.

RFP No. 9:

Any/all citizens complaints, 602 grievances, GA22 requests, letters, records from 

inmate Robles #G28561 including any witness’s (sic) who have knowledge and 

information regard the cell incident on July 16, 2009. Provided Robles signs a 

written release agreement. 

Defendants' Response:

Defendants object to this request on the ground that it is an improper request for 

production because it seeks documents from a non-party.

Ruling: These documents are the subject of a motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum 

which Plaintiff filed on February 17, 2015. (Doc. 62, 63.) Plaintiff's motion was ruled on and 

 

3 The Court accepts that allowing photos of various prison locations to be kept by inmates could pose threat to the 

security of the prison given the impossibility of ensuring they are not circulated to others.

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 81 Filed 08/20/15 Page 8 of 10
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

indicated it would be granted if Plaintiff submitted a copy of the statement for his inmate trust 

account, within sixty days, showing that he would be able to pay for copies of the documents that 

IM Robles may have which are responsive to his request. (Doc. 70.) However, sixty days from 

that order lapsed without Plaintiff's compliance. Plaintiff again seeks to obtain the information 

from IM Robles and admits in his reply that he is "unable to pay any copying fees" and that he 

needs Defendants to be ordered to provide them to him. However, RFPs are a proper means of 

discovery to obtain information from parties and cannot be used to make an opposing party 

contact an outside person to obtain documents that the propounding party desires. IM Robles is 

not a party to this action and Defendants cannot be required to obtain information from a nonparty simply because Plaintiff is unable to afford to do so on his own. Thus, Plaintiff's motion to 

compel further response/production to RFP No. 9 is DENIED.

RFP No. 10:

Any/all CDCR notes, reports regard media broad casts, citizens protesting’s 

regard northern/southern lock down, melees etc. 

Defendants' Response:

Defendants object to this request on the ground that it is overly broad as to time 

and scope because it includes all responsive documents for all lockdowns and 

melees between northern and southern gang factions at all California prisons for 

an indeterminate period of time.

Ruling: Plaintiff's motion to compel further response/production to RFP No. 10 is 

DISREGARDED since withdrawn by Plaintiff. (Doc. 75, 4:5-6.)

IV. Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to RFPs No. 1, 3, and 7 is 

DENIED;

2. Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to RFPs No. 7 and 8 is 

GRANTED, subject to the limitations set forth in this order; and

///

///

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 81 Filed 08/20/15 Page 9 of 10
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

3. Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to RFPs No. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 

10 is DISREGARDED since either withdrawn by Plaintiff or rendered 

moot by Defense production.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 81 Filed 08/20/15 Page 10 of 10