Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00446/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00446-57/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

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

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All parties have consented to 

magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 7, 231.) This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendant Romero for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, and against Defendants Gallagher and Romero for conspiracy, retaliation in violation of 

the First Amendment, and failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel, as amended and updated. (ECF Nos. 234, 

236.) Defendants have opposed the motion, (ECF No. 235), and the time for filing a reply has passed, 

with no reply filed by Plaintiff, Local Rule 230(l). Therefore, the motion, as amended and updated, is 

submitted. 

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

GALLAGHER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:11-cv-00446-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEY TO 

DISCLOSE FULL NAMES AND CURRENT 

ADDRESSES OF WITNESSES

(ECF Nos. 234, 236)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:11-cv-00446-BAM Document 238 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 5
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

27

28

II. Discussion

In his motion, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants, through their counsel, to provide 

the full names and current addresses of several people he intends to subpoena as witnesses for trial in 

this matter. Plaintiff requested this information by letter to defense counsel dated April 27, 2016, 

through a list of both incarcerated and un-incarcerated witnesses, including some current and former 

employees of CDCR. (ECF No. 234, pp. 4-5.) Some of these people were identified by full name and 

other identifying information, but others are unnamed individuals identified by a description, such as 

“inmates housed in cell C3-110 on 6/8/10.” (Id. at p. 5.) 

Defense counsel responded to Plaintiff by letter, setting forth several disclaimers but also 

providing Plaintiff with the locations of several of Plaintiff’s witnesses from his list. (ECF No. 235, 

pp. 5-6.) For the inmates that Plaintiff provided a name and CDCR number, defense counsel used 

CDCR’s online inmate locator, available to the public via http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/, and 

provided the institution where those people are currently housed according to that website. For certain 

CDCR employees and former employees, defense counsel provided the name and location of the 

facility or organization where those people are believed to be currently employed, to the extent known. 

Defendants now oppose Plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff should have requested this 

information during discovery; and (2) the motion is moot since defense counsel provided all 

information that was reasonably available in response to Plaintiff’s letter. (ECF No. 235.)

Plaintiff acknowledges that defense counsel provided him some information, but argues he 

should be provided the full names of all the proposed witnesses, and their full, current addresses. 

Plaintiff states that he requested this information and information sufficient to identify his unnamed 

witnesses during discovery, but Defendants objected to his requests and did not provide the 

information. He also alleges that he cannot obtain the full addresses for the institutions and 

organizations that defense counsel has provided him, as necessary to prepare subpoenas, if needed. 

A. Analysis

Plaintiff has not attached or otherwise identified the relevant discovery requests, or the 

Defendants’ objections and responses, for the Court’s review. Plaintiff has been previously warned of 

his burden, as the moving party, to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of his 

Case 1:11-cv-00446-BAM Document 238 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

motion to compel, and why Defendants’ objections are not justified or why the responses were 

otherwise deficient. (ECF No. 115, p. 4 (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002); 

Brooks v. Alameida, 2009 WL 331358, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb.10, 2009); Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL 

860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008)).) Although it is not the Court’s responsibility to do so, in an 

attempt to expediently resolve this matter, the Court has identified what appear to be the relevant 

discovery requests Plaintiff relies upon, which were the subject of a previous motion to compel in this 

case.

Plaintiff previously requested from Defendants information concerning the inmates housed in 

Building C3 on June 8, 2010, when the incidents relevant to this action occurred. (ECF No. 115, pp. 8-

9.) Defendants objected to such request on relevancy grounds, as seeking privileged information and 

information protected by privacy laws, as seeking information which would compromise the safety 

and security of the institution, and as seeking some information which was not known to Defendants. 

(Id. at 9-11.) Plaintiff also previously requested the names and locations of the custody staff 

sergeants, lieutenants and captains working on Facility C at the time of the relevant events. (Id. at 11.) 

Defendants objected to such requests on relevancy grounds, as overbroad, and as not then-known to 

Defendants. (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel this requested information over Defendants’ objections was 

denied, since he failed to address the validity of the objections or the adequacy of the responses, and 

did not explain the relevancy of the information. (ECF No. 115, pp. 9, 11.) The Court construes 

Plaintiff’s current motion as an attempt to have the Court reconsider its prior ruling on this issue. 

Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. 

Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing SEC v. Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 

1100 (9th Cir. 2010)). “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th 

Cir.2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). “A party seeking reconsideration must 

show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that which was 

already considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly 

Case 1:11-cv-00446-BAM Document 238 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 5
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

convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City 

of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 

828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.1987).

In his current motion, Plaintiff has now shown that the relevancy of the requested information 

is to identify, contact and possibly subpoena potential witnesses to the events. (ECF No. 234, p. 5). 

Moreover, to the extent Defendants have now provided the locations of the people Plaintiff identified 

as potential witnesses, it appears they have waived their previous objections. Therefore, the Court will 

order Defendants to provide the full addresses of the people whose locations were provided, in good 

faith, as set forth in defense counsel’s May 18, 2016 letter. Defendants will only be required to provide 

the full addresses of the institutions or other business locations that they set forth in their letter as the 

most-recent contact information. The Court also cautions Plaintiff that granting this relief does not 

mean the Court will necessarily require such witnesses to testify in this matter. Plaintiff must still meet 

all requirements for securing the attendance of such witnesses, as was previously described in the 

Court’s second scheduling order. (ECF No. 233.) 

For the people that Defendants will not provide the full name or location of based on their prior 

objections, including their lack of knowledge of who such people are or where they are now located, 

the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel such information. Other than the issue of relevancy, 

Plaintiff has not shown why those objections are insufficient or invalid, or otherwise addressed the 

Defendants’ previous responses. Nor can Defendants be compelled to provide information not in their 

possession, custody, or control. Thus, Plaintiff has not met the burden for reconsideration of the 

Court’s prior rulings with respect to those matters. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, as amended (ECF Nos. 234, 236) is GRANTED IN PART 

AND DENIED IN PART; 

2. Defendants shall provide the full addresses of the institutions for the five inmates 

(Vargas, Levels, Willis, Contreras, and Lopez) listed on the first page of defense counsel’s May 18, 

2016 letter, (ECF No. 235, p. 5), and of the institutions or other locations for the thirteen CDCR 

Case 1:11-cv-00446-BAM Document 238 Filed 06/24/16 Page 4 of 5
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

employees and former employees (Stiles, Sells, Sica, Waddle, Henderson, Molina, Cano, DaViega, 

Biter, Biane, Christensen, Harrington, and Harden) listed on the second page, (Id. at 6); and

3. Defendants shall provide this information on or before fourteen (14) days from the date 

of service of this order. No extension shall be provided absent a showing of good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00446-BAM Document 238 Filed 06/24/16 Page 5 of 5