Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02064/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02064-6/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK LEE DEARWESTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-2064 MCE KJN P (TEMP)

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to compel and 

plaintiff’s motion to compel. Below, the court will address each motion in turn. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is proceeding on his original complaint against defendant County of Sacramento. 

Therein plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to a Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department policy, all 

incoming inmate mail, with the exception of legal mail and other approved correspondence, is 

limited to postcards no larger than six inches by four and one-half inches. Plaintiff claims that the 

policy, a copy of which is attached to plaintiff’s complaint, violates his rights under the First 

Amendment. (Compl. at 3 & Attachs.)

/////

Case 2:13-cv-02064-MCE-DB Document 55 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 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

2

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter 

that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to 

the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at 

stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative 

access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the 

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the 

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be 

admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). 

With respect to interrogatories, a party may propound interrogatories that “relate to any 

matter that may be inquired into under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(a)(2). With respect to requests for production, 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)). 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Defendant County of Sacramento has moved to compel plaintiff’s responses to 

defendant’s Interrogatories, Set One, and defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set 

One. According to defense counsel, the defendant served plaintiff with these discovery requests 

on September 30, 2015, making plaintiff’s responses due by November 13, 2015. Plaintiff has 

not responded to any of the discovery requests. Defense counsel notes that on December 2, 2015, 

defense counsel made a good-faith effort to confer with plaintiff in writing and obtain his

responses to no avail. (Def.’s Mot. to Compel at 1-3, Debow Decl. Exs. A & B.)

Case 2:13-cv-02064-MCE-DB Document 55 Filed 04/06/16 Page 2 of 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

3

In opposition to the pending motion to compel, plaintiff contends that he had not received 

defendant’s interrogatories or requests for production of documents until the defendant filed the

pending motion to compel on December 17, 2015. Plaintiff requests an additional forty-five (45) 

to sixty (60) days to respond to defendant’s discovery requests. (Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to 

Compel at 1.)

Under the circumstances of this case, the court grants defendant’s motion to compel. In 

addition, if plaintiff has not already responded to defendant’s discovery requests, the court will 

grant him a reasonable extension of time to respond to defendant’s interrogatories and requests 

for production of documents. Plaintiff is advised that with respect to defendant’s interrogatories, 

plaintiff must answer each interrogatory “separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 33(b)(3). With respect to defendant’s request for production of documents, if plaintiff has 

any relevant documents or materials in his possession or control, he must produce them in 

response to defendant’s discovery requests. If plaintiff is not in possession or control of relevant 

materials, he must state under oath that the requested documents do not exist or are not in his 

possession or control. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Plaintiff is cautioned that “[t]he discovery 

process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith obligation.” Asea v. Southern Pacific 

Transportation Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1247 (9th Cir. 1981). 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

The court now turns to plaintiff’s motion to compel. Plaintiff has moved to compel 

defendant County of Sacramento to provide a further response to his Interrogatory No. 4. 

According to plaintiff, he served the defendant with interrogatories on September 30, 2015, 

making the defendant’s responses due by November 13, 2015. The parties do not dispute that the 

defendant timely served plaintiff with responses to the interrogatories. Plaintiff, however, was

dissatisfied with defendant’s response to Interrogatory Number 4 and made a good-faith effort to 

confer with the defendant in writing. Although the defendant served plaintiff with a supplemental 

response to Interrogatory Number 4, plaintiff believes defendant’s response is still not adequate 

and moves to compel a further response. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel at 2-3.)

/////

Case 2:13-cv-02064-MCE-DB Document 55 Filed 04/06/16 Page 3 of 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

4

In opposition to the pending motion to compel, defense counsel contends that the court 

should deny plaintiff’s motion to compel because it is untimely. Moreover, counsel contends that 

the court should not compel the defendant to provide a further response to plaintiff’s 

Interrogatory No. 4 because it is made up of at least four discrete interrogatories, and it is not 

clear which subpart plaintiff refers to his motion to compel. In addition, plaintiff’s request for 

names, addresses, booking photographs for anyone held in defendant’s custody in any capacity in 

the Sacramento County Main Jail or any of defendant’s other facilities where inmates are held in 

any capacity is overbroad and would be so burdensome as to constitute harassment. (Def.’s 

Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel at 2-6.)

As an initial matter, plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 4 states:

State the name, ADDRESS at the time of booking into 

DEFENDANT’S custody, any available forwarding 

ADDRESS(es), IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, booking 

photograph(s) of all PERSONS in DEFENDANT’S custody in any 

capacity at its Sacramento County Main Jail Facility or any other of

DEFENDANT’S facilities where inmates are held in any capacity 

during INCIDENT.

State the name, ADDRESS(es), and relationship to any inmate 

above, any PERSON who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events 

occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; any

PERSON who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; 

any PERSON who heard any statements made about the 

INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and who YOU or 

ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of 

the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of 

Civil Procedure section 2034).

Have YOU or ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF 

interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for 

each individual state:

(a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual 

interviewed;

(b) The date of the interview; and

(c) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON 

who conducted the interview.

Have YOU or ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained 

a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the 

INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state:

(a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual 

Case 2:13-cv-02064-MCE-DB Document 55 Filed 04/06/16 Page 4 of 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

5

from whom the statement was obtained;

(b) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual 

who obtained the statement;

(c) The date the statement was obtained; and

(d) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON 

who has the statement or a copy.

(Defs. Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, Debow Decl. Ex. A.)

Defendant County of Sacramento objected to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it is 

overbroad, violates third parties’ right to privacy, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence because plaintiff is not permitted to make claims on behalf of 

other inmates or persons who had been detained at the jail. Without waiving these objections and 

others, in response to plaintiff’s inquiry about identification of witnesses, the defendant provided 

plaintiff with the names and badge numbers of two lieutenants and three deputies who could be 

contacted via defense counsel. In response to plaintiff’s inquiry about individuals interviewed 

and whether any statements were taken from witnesses, defendant informed plaintiff that no 

individuals had been interviewed. (Defs. Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, Debow Decl. Ex. A.) 

Under the circumstances of this case, the court denies plaintiff’s motion to compel. First, 

as defense counsel argues, plaintiff’s motion is untimely. According to this court’s discovery and 

scheduling order, the parties needed to file any motion to compel on or before December 11, 

2015. (ECF No. 33) Plaintiff signed his motion to compel on January 4, 2016, and the court did 

not receive his motion for filing until January 8, 2016. Moreover, even if the court excused 

plaintiff’s failure to file his motion to compel on time, plaintiff’s Interrogatory Number 4 is 

grossly overbroad, and the “burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Plaintiff has not satisfactorily explained how or why the 

information he seeks is relevant to his sole claim for municipal liability based on the defendant’s 

alleged change to the incoming inmate mail policy. As this court previously advised plaintiff, he 

may not assert legal rights on behalf of third parties, including other inmates. (ECF No. 32 at 3.) 

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, the court will not require the defendant to provide 

any further response to plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 4. 

Case 2:13-cv-02064-MCE-DB Document 55 Filed 04/06/16 Page 5 of 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

6

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 39) is granted;

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall respond to defendant’s

Interrogatories, Set One, and defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One if he has 

not done so already; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 42) is denied.

Dated: April 6, 2016

dear2064.mtc

Case 2:13-cv-02064-MCE-DB Document 55 Filed 04/06/16 Page 6 of 6