Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01025/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01025-11/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

DENELL CAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL 

RESPONSES TO RFP 3 AND RFP 4

(Doc. 69)

TWENTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Denell Caver, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 20, 2011. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on April 10, 2012, against Defendants Gomez, Stark, 

and Garcia for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment of the United States Constitution.

On August 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Garcia to produce 

documents responsive to requests for the production of documents (“RFP”) numbers 3 and 4.1

(Doc. 69.) Defendant Garcia filed an opposition on September 5, 2014, and Plaintiff filed a reply 

on September 15, 2014. (Docs. 70, 73.) The motion was submitted upon the record without oral 

argument. Local Rule 230(l).

///

 

1 The motion to compel was timely pursuant to the Court’s order filed on July 29, 2014. (Doc. 68.) 

Case 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO Document 74 Filed 11/20/14 Page 1 of 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

2

II. Discussion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Garcia to respond to RFP 3 and RFP 4 represents 

the final discovery dispute between the parties. As this is not the first motion to compel resolved 

by the Court in this action, the legal standards previously provided do not bear repetition. Turning 

to the merits, Plaintiff’s motion shall be granted for the reasons which follow. 

RFP 3: “Produce a copy of the post order for Facility B displaying the names and post 

assignment numbers for the 2 Sergeant positions, Facility B ‘dining’ Sergeant and Facility B 

‘yard’ Sergeant for the third watch (2pm - 10pm), for the date of December 14, 2010.”

Response: “Defendant objects the request on the ground that it is compound, and 

irrelevant because it requests information that it not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence related to the claims against Defendant Garcia. Plaintiff is attempting to 

obtain documents related to other Defendants that he did not request when discovery was open 

related to those Defendants. Defendant further objects on the ground that he does not have 

possession or control of the documents requested.”

RFP 4: “Produce a copy of the post order for Facility B displaying the names and post 

assignment numbers for the 2 Sergeant positions, Facility B ‘dining’ Sergeant and Facility B 

‘yard’ Sergeant for the third watch (2pm - 10pm), for the date of December 15, 2010.”

Response: “Defendant objects the request on the ground that it is compound, and 

irrelevant because it requests information that it not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence related to the claims against Defendant Garcia. Plaintiff is attempting to 

obtain documents related to other Defendants that he did not request when discovery was open 

related to those Defendants. Defendant further objects on the ground that he does not have 

possession or control of the documents requested.”

Ruling: Defendant Garcia’s objections are overruled. The objection of “compound” in 

this instance lacks merit, and Defendant’s narrow treatment of the scope of discovery is 

unsupportable; the post orders are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and they are discoverable. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981)

(“The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith,” and “[c]allous 

Case 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO Document 74 Filed 11/20/14 Page 2 of 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

3

disregard of discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned.”). Moreover, Defendant Garcia’s bare 

assertion that he lacks possession or control over the documents is unpersuasive and it does not 

suffice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B), (C); Allen v. Woodford, No. CV-F05-1104 OWW LJO, 2007 WL 309945, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007) (citing In re Bankers Trust 

Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States 

Dist. Court for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejecting boilerplate 

objections). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is HEREBY GRANTED, and Defendant Garcia 

is ordered to produce the post orders responsive to RFP 3 and RFP 4 within twenty (20) days

from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO Document 74 Filed 11/20/14 Page 3 of 3