Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05980/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05980-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. T. LUNDY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-05980-AWI-LJO PC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL

(Doc. 41)

PARTIES HAVE THIRTY DAYS TO

COMPLY WITH INITIAL APPLICABLE

DEADLINES 

Plaintiff Edward Jones (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed April 18, 2005, against defendants Lundy, Manning, and

Cadena (“defendants”) for using excessive physical force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On December 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to document production

requests one through six. Defendants filed an opposition on January 5, 2007. Plaintiff did not file

a timely reply and the motion has been deemed submitted. Local Rule 78-230(m).

PODs 1 and 2: Plaintiff seeks a copy of his central file, excluding the confidential section,

and a copy of his medical file and mental health records. Defendants object on the ground that

plaintiff’s central file and unified health record are equally available to plaintiff for inspection and

copying.

First, this request is overly broad as it encompasses plaintiff’s entire central and health files

while this action is proceeding on only one claim which accrued on March 3, 2003. Second, plaintiff

Case 1:03-cv-05980-DLB Document 49 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 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

2

may not use discovery to obtain free copies of documents equally available to him. Plaintiff is

entitled to review his files. If plaintiff is unable to obtain a review and copies, he may notify the

court and it will attempt to facilitate an arrangement by which plaintiff may review and copy his

files. 

With respect to plaintiff’s contention that he needs to get copies from defendants in order to

avoid a future argument that the documents are not admissible because they have not been

authenticated, this concern is premature. Should defendants tender that objection in the future,

plaintiff may argue to the trial judge that the documents are California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation records and their authenticity is not subject to reasonable dispute. Any party

frivolously challenging the authenticity of a document may find itself at the receiving end of

sanctions, at the court’s discretion. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to these requests are denied. 

POD 3: Plaintiff seeks the incident report dated March 3, 2003. Defendants object on the

ground that if such a document exists, it is part of plaintiff’s central or medical file and is equally

available to plaintiff for inspection and copying.

Defendants contend that this document is equally available to plaintiff and plaintiff has made

no showing that it is not. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to this request is denied.

POD 4: Plaintiff seeks the use of force incident report dated March 3, 2003. Defendants

object on the ground of confidentiality.

Defendants may not avoid producing discoverable documents by tendering a vague objection

that the document contains confidential information. See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603,

613 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (party asserting the official information privilege must properly invoke it by

making a “substantial threshold showing”) (quoting Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 669

(N.D. Cal. 1987)). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to this request is granted, and defendants

shall produce the document within thirty days. If the document contains information relating to

confidential informants, defendants may redact that information prior to producing it. If the

document contains any other information that defendants believe warrants redaction, defendants may

///

Case 1:03-cv-05980-DLB Document 49 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 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

3

submit the unredacted copy to the court for in camera review, accompanied by a description of which

portions they believe should be subject to redaction and why.

POD 5: Plaintiff seeks defendants’ personnel files for the past five years. Defendants object

on the grounds that the request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and not reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and on the grounds of confidentiality and privilege. 

“Government personnel files are considered official information.” Sanchez v. City of Santa

Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 957, 112 S.Ct. 416 (1991); Miller

v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 299 C.D. Cal. 1992). However, defendants’ bare, unsupported

objection of confidentiality and privilege is insufficient to avoid production of discoverable

documents from defendants’ personnel files. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613; Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 669. 

Plaintiff seeks this information as character evidence showing defendants’ propensity for

violence. Character evidence “is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show

action in conformity therewith,” Fed. R. Ev. 404(b), and despite plaintiff’s argument to the contrary,

defendants’ character or character traits are not an essential element of plaintiff’s excessive force

claim against, Fed. R. Ev. 405(b). However, character evidence may be admissible for other

purposes and plaintiff is entitled to discoverable information.

Plaintiff’s request as presently drafted is overly broad. If plaintiff is willing to narrow his

inquiry to a period of three years and limit it to like circumstances, the court will grant his motion

and direct defendants to produce any documents in their personnel files responsive to the request.

However, plaintiff is required to notify the court and defendants whether he accepts this limitation

within thirty days. If plaintiff fails to do so, his motion to compel a response to this request is

deemed denied. If plaintiff accepts the limitation and notifies defendants and the court of his

acceptance within thirty days, defendants have thirty days thereafter to respond. Names and

personal information of other inmates or individuals other than the named defendants may be

redacted from the documents, and any of defendants’ personal information such as Social Security

numbers, birth dates, home addresses, etc. may be redacted. If further disputes or concerns arise, the

parties may at that time contact the court for assistance. 

///

Case 1:03-cv-05980-DLB Document 49 Filed 01/25/07 Page 3 of 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

4

POD 6: Plaintiff seeks Corrections’ use of force policy and incident report filing. Defendants

object on the grounds that the request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, duplicative as to incident

report filing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and on

the ground of confidentiality. Defendants state that non-confidential sections of the Department

Operations Manual are available to plaintiff in the law library.

Defendants’ conclusory objection of confidentiality is insufficient to shield them from

producing discoverable documents. Soto, 162 F.R.D. 603 at 613; Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 669.

However, the court agrees that plaintiff’s request is vague as to “incident report filing.” The court

is unsure what documents plaintiff is seeking as responsive to that portion of the request. With

respect to use of force policies, the request is overly broad and vague. It is unclear if plaintiff is

seeking California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations’ policies or the California

Correctional Institution’s policies or both, and for what period of time. If plaintiff wishes to re-draft

and re-serve this request, he may do so within thirty days from the date of service of this order. If

plaintiff re-drafts and re-serves this request, defendants have thirty days to serve a response, and

plaintiff has fifteen days from the date of service of defendants’ response within which to file a

motion to compel, if he deems one necessary. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed

December 20, 2006, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows.

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to requests one, two, and three is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to request four is GRANTED and defendants

have thirty (30) days from the date ofservice of this order to produce the document,

subject to redaction as set forth herein.

3. With respect to request five, plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service

of this order within which to notify the court and defendants whether he accepts the

narrowing of the request as set forth by the court. If plaintiff notifies the court and

defendants he accepts the limitation, defendants have thirty (30) days thereafter to

serve a response as limited by the court herein.

///

Case 1:03-cv-05980-DLB Document 49 Filed 01/25/07 Page 4 of 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

5

4. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to request six is DENIED. Plaintiff has

thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to re-draft and re-serve the

request, if he wishes to do so. If plaintiff re-drafts and re-serves the request,

defendants have thirty (30) days to serve a response, and plaintiff has fifteen (15)

days from the date of defendants’ response to file a motion to compel, if one is

necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05980-DLB Document 49 Filed 01/25/07 Page 5 of 5