Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01729/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01729-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

 WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James E. Skinner, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1729-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, in which

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Alvarez to produce additional documents. (Doc.

145) Defendant has filed a Response and Plaintiff has filed a Reply. (Docs. 150, 151)

The discovery at issue in this motion pertains to Plaintiff’s claim in Count I of his First

Amended Complaint, the sole remaining claim, in which Plaintiff alleges he is being deprived

of basic necessities in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff complains of inadequate

plumbing in his cell, unsanitary conditions in his cell and other areas, and the failure to provide

cleaning supplies to address the unsanitary conditions. Plaintiff claims that for nine months he

was housed in a cell in which the base of the toilet leaked every time it was used, which caused

flooding, and that he was not provided adequate supplies to address the problem. He further

claims that when he was eventually moved to a different cell in a different housing unit, the

walls of the cell appeared to have blood and dried feces on them. He claims that during the

several months he was there, he repeatedly requested supplies to clean his cell but received

adequate supplies on only one occasion. Plaintiff also claims that outdoor recreation cages and

an outer stairwell were covered with cat waste and pigeon droppings. He claims these

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 155 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

contaminants were then tracked back to his cell. Plaintiff claims he informed Defendants of

these issues but they failed to take any action to resolve the problems.

In this Motion to Compel, Plaintiff identifies three requests for production to which

he claims Defendant Alvarez failed to adequately respond. He asks the Court to order Defendant

Alvarez to produce more documents responsive to the requests. Defendant Alvarez argues in

the response that his responses to the requests for production were sufficient and the objections

he has asserted are proper. 

A. Legal Standards for Discovery

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties 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. All discovery is subject to the limitations

imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). These limitations reflect that, in addition

to being relevant, discovery must also be proportional to the issues and needs of the case. Kaiser

v. BMW of North America, LLC, 2013 WL 1856578, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2013) (citing

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)). Rule 26(b)(2)(C) provides:

On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of

discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rules if it determines

that:

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can

be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less

burdensome, or less expensive;

(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the

information by discovery in the action; or

(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the

parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.

Thus, the court must “strike[ ] the proper balance between permitting relevant

discovery and limiting the scope and burdens of the discovery to what is proportional to the

case.” Kaiser, 2013 WL at *3. Moreover, “[b]road discretion is vested in the trial court to

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 155 Filed 06/30/14 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

permit or deny discovery, and its decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon

the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the

complaining litigant.” Hallet v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732,751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Goehring v.

Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1305 (9th Cir. 1996)).

B. Application

Plaintiff’s first request for production to Defendant Alvarez states:

Produce any and all documents that in any way relates to or otherwise

references Browning Unit sanitation of inmate housing areas, by any name,

whether cluster, cell or pod, to include but not limited to: Post Orders,

Policies, Plans, Protocols, Procedures, Correctional Standards, Correctional

Service Laws, Cluster Cleaning Equipment Master Inventory and Check

Out Forms, Browning Unit Daily Activity Schedules, Methicillin Resistant

Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) documents and videos, Audits, Incident

Reports, Memorandums, Town Hall Meeting documents and all staff

sanitation duties.

(Doc. 145 at 6) In response, Defendant’s counsel produced approximately 1300 pages of

documents that had nothing to do with Browning Unit. Counsel claims he knew this when he

produced the documents. (Doc. 150 at 3) His explanation, oddly, is that “these are the

documents in counsel’s possession that were redacted and ready to be disclosed.” (Id.) He

subsequently produced another 1400 documents pertaining to Browning Unit. Plaintiff claims

in his reply, however, that the documents provided are so heavily redacted, they are useless.

Regardless, the Court exercises its broad discretion over discovery matters and finds

that, applying Rule 26(b)(2)(C), Plaintiff’s request is completely disproportional to what is

appropriate for this case. The Court finds the “burden or expense of the proposed discovery

outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the

parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the

discovery in resolving the issues.” See 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). The Court will order no further

production of documents in response to this request.

In his second request, Plaintiff directs Defendant Alvarez to “[p]roduce any and all

Browning Unit documents related to or otherwise reference [sic] sanitation which require your

signature.” (Doc. 145 at 8-9) In response, Defendant’s counsel again referenced the same

documents that had nothing to do with Browning Unit that he produced in response to the first

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 155 Filed 06/30/14 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

request.

Plaintiff’s second request for production, however, contains no time frame and it

requests all documents related to sanitation (signed by Alvarez), even though Plaintiff’s one

remaining claim addresses very specific sanitation issues. Plaintiff’s request is overly broad and

unduly burdensome in light of the narrow issues in this case. The Court will order no further

production of documents in response to this request.

Finally, Plaintiff’s third request seeks incident reports written by CO II Johnson for

Sgt. Mendoza on January 17, 2014 regarding Plaintiff’s complaints about inadequate sanitation

supplies. (Doc. 145) In another careless response, Defendant’s counsel simply wrote, “Will

Supplement.” (Doc. 150 at 4)

In response to the motion to compel, Defendant’s counsel now claims the requested

document is irrelevant, even though no objection was asserted in the response to the discovery

request. Defendant’s counsel acknowledges he and Defendant Alvarez have reviewed the

document. He asserts, however, that they find it to be not relevant, though he provides no good

reasons to support that conclusion. Defendant’s relevancy objection is without merit. Counsel

will be ordered to produce any documents responsive to Plaintiff’s third request within one

week.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, doc. 145, is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is granted as to Plaintiff’s third request

for production to Defendant Alvarez. Defendant’s counsel shall produce any documents

responsive to the request no later than Monday, July 7, 2014. The Motion is denied as to

Plaintiff’s other two requests for production.

DATED this 30th day of June, 2014.

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 155 Filed 06/30/14 Page 4 of 4