Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01113/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01113-47/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

SERGIO ALEJANDRO GAMEZ,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

F. GONZALEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:08-cv-01113-LJO-EPG-PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF‟S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS 

RESPONSIVE TO FIRST SET OF 

DOCUMENT REQUESTS

(Doc. 189.)

ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION 

BY ALL DEFENDANTS OF 

DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO 

DOCUMENT REQUESTS 1-6 WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS OF THIS ORDER; or 

SUBMISSION FOR IN CAMERA 

REVIEW

I. BACKGROUND

Sergio Alejandro Gamez (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 

August 1, 2008. (Doc. 1.) 

The Ninth Circuit held that “there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the 

evidence used by defendants in support of Gamez‟s 2010 re-validation as a gang associate, a 

report of an interview with a confidential informant, had „sufficient indicia of reliability,‟ 

through corroboration or other means to meet the „some evidence‟ standard as required to 

Case 1:08-cv-01113-EPG Document 201 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 6
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

satisfy due process.” (Doc. 116 at 2; Gamez v. Gonzales et al., 481 Fed.Appx. 310, 311 (9th 

Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the Court vacated the district court‟s summary judgment for 

defendants on Gamez‟s due process claims relating to his re-validation as a prison gang 

associate in 2010, and remanded for further proceedings. It also vacated the dismissal of 

Gamez‟s retaliation claim associated with the 2010 re-validation.

This case now proceeds with the Fourth Amended Complaint, filed on November 8, 

2013, on Plaintiff‟s claims for due process violations concerning his 2010 and 2012 gang revalidations, and related retaliation claims, against defendants Holland, Gonzalez, Tyree, 

Gentry, Adame, and Jakabosky. (Doc. 147.) 

On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the production of documents by 

defendants Holland, Tyree, and Adame. (Doc. 189.) On April 16, 2015, defendants Holland, 

Tyree, and Adame filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 192.) On April 16, 2015, Plaintiff 

filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. 193.) Plaintiff‟s motion to compel is now before the 

Court.

II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery 

regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(b). “Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. A party may 

propound requests for production of documents that are within the scope of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may 

move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or 

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have 

„broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 16.‟” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 

Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). 

Case 1:08-cv-01113-EPG Document 201 Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 6
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

Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigant; therefore, to the extent possible, the 

Court endeavors to resolve Plaintiff‟s motion to compel on its merits. Hunt, 672 F.3d at 616; 

Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. 

Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002.)

III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to his First Set of Requests for Production, dated 

March 19, 2015. There are six document requests:

REQUEST NO. 1: Any and all documents that refer or relate to policies, procedures, 

and practices in effect in/or October 2007, to the present date 

which relate to the 180 days reviews of prisoners‟ indeterminate 

housing reviews.

REQUEST NO. 2: All relevant sections from 2007, to 2013, from the current 

California Department of Corrections‟ classification manual that 

details the criteria for allowing a gang member or associate to be 

housed in the general population.

REQUEST NO. 3: All documents reviewed in conjunction with every 180 days 

„SHU‟ review of Plaintiff by the aforementioned Defendants 

from 2006, to 2013, including, but not limited to CDC 128-B 

Reports, CDC 128-G Reports, CDC 812-A Reports.

REQUEST NO. 4: Any and all documents that provide the criteria used by the 

institutional classification committee to determine when a 

validated prison gang member or associate should be released to 

the general prison population pursuant to the wording of the 

governing California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 

3378(d).

REQUEST NO. 5: Any and all reports and photos of the 2010 and 2012, validation 

requests that were submitted to the Office of Correctional Safety 

(OCS) or SSU for review.

REQUEST NO. 6: A complete listing of all persons or agencies who were provided 

a copy of the documents relative to Plaintiff of validation request 

and/or validation.

Plaintiff argues that these documents are necessary to reveal what procedures were in 

place between 2010 and 2012, and for Plaintiff to be able to exhibit that Defendants violated 

Case 1:08-cv-01113-EPG Document 201 Filed 11/09/15 Page 3 of 6
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

those procedures and Plaintiff‟s due process rights. Plaintiff also states that he is willing to 

narrow his requests to seek only documents dated or in place as of 2010-2012. 

Defendants fail to address any of the specific requests in their opposition. Instead, 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of relevance. Defendants also state 

generally that “each of the contested document requests are overly broad, impose undue 

burdens on Defendants, and, in many cases, implicate the privacy rights of third parties and 

would pose a security risk to those involved in providing the information and compromise the 

system for rooting out gang activity.” (Doc. 192 at 3:2-5.) 

At the outset, this Court is not required to give boilerplate objections any weight. See

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 

(9th Cir. 2005) (“We hold that boilerplate objections or blanket refusals inserted into a response 

to a Rule 34 request for production of documents are insufficient to assert a privilege.”); A. 

Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (“As an initial matter, 

general or boilerplate objections such as “overly burdensome and harassing” are improper—

especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections. 

Similarly, boilerplate relevancy objections, without setting forth any explanation or argument 

why the requested documents are not relevant, are improper.”) (internal citations omitted). 

This is a case about due process. Plaintiff is entitled to learn what process was in place 

at the time of his revalidation proceedings. Defendants are the ones who were trained under 

such processes and are in the best position to know which were in effect and have the best 

access to them. Therefore, the Court orders that Defendants must produce all documents 

responsive to Requests 1, 2, and 4, subject to the in camera procedures discussed below.

Plaintiff is also entitled to all of the evidence that was presented and evaluated 

regarding his own validation proceedings, to determine if Defendants followed their own 

procedures. While this is not the critical inquiry, it is relevant to the question of whether 

Defendants provided Plaintiff with constitutional due process. Thus, the Court orders that 

Defendants must produce all documents responsive to Request 3 and 5, subject to the in camera

procedures discussed below.

Case 1:08-cv-01113-EPG Document 201 Filed 11/09/15 Page 4 of 6
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

Request number 6 concerns what other agencies were provided documents related to 

Plaintiff‟s validation and/or revalidation. While not strictly relevant to Plaintiffs‟ claims, this 

request is directed to verifying that Defendants have produced all relevant documents and could 

provide an alternative way to search for additional documents. The Court also grants Plaintiff‟s 

motion to compel as to Request 6.

As to many of these document requests, Defendants state that production of these 

documents could pose security risks and compromise the system of rooting out gang activity. 

The Court does not understand how this can be true of all of the documents contained within, 

but the Court is also mindful of the importance of security in prison. To be clear, this order 

requires production of the procedures in place for determining validation of gang activity, and 

substantive information only as to this Plaintiff. Plaintiff is not requesting information about 

any other prisoner or gang. Moreover, the Plaintiff is entitled to understand the procedures that 

were supposed to be followed and how, if at all, they were followed in his own case. 

Because of Defendants‟ objections based on security in this context, however, the Court 

will permit Defendants to submit documents in camera, for the Court‟s review, any documents 

or portions of documents that Defendants believe should be exempt from this order based on a 

concern about security or an issue of privilege. Defendants should submit the documents with 

a full explanation of the documents or portions or documents they believe fall within this 

restriction and a full explanation with any legal citations explaining their position. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s motion to compel Document Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 from his First 

Request for Production of Documents dated March 19, 2015 is granted. Defendants 

Holland, Tyree, and Adame are ordered to produce all requested documents within 

their possession, custody and control within thirty days of this order; 

2. If Defendants believe that production of any such documents or portions of 

documents pose a security threat or invade a privilege, they should submit those

///

Case 1:08-cv-01113-EPG Document 201 Filed 11/09/15 Page 5 of 6
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

documents to the Court in camera with a full explanation within thirty days of this 

order.

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2015 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01113-EPG Document 201 Filed 11/09/15 Page 6 of 6