Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00271/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00271-16/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

ANDREW A. CEJAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MYERS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB PC

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT 

MYERS TO PROVIDE FURTHER 

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

(Document 110)

Plaintiff Andrew A. Cejas (“Plaintiff”) is a California 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 for violation of the First Amendment against numerous 

Defendants.

On September 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Myers to provide 

further responses to his First Set of Interrogatories, Numbers 7, 10, 11 and 27-41. Defendant Myers 

opposed the motion on October 13, 2015. Plaintiff filed his reply on October 27, 2015, and the 

motion is suitable for decision pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

A. LEGAL STANDARD

An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b), and an 

interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to 

fact or the application of law to fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2) (quotation marks omitted). Parties are 

Case 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB Document 120 Filed 11/04/15 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

obligated to respond to interrogatories to the fullest extent possible under oath, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Davis v. 

Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981). The responding party shall use common sense and 

reason. E.g., Collins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 06-2466-CM-DJW, 2008 WL 1924935, *8 (D. 

Kan. Apr. 30, 2008). A responding party is not generally required to conduct extensive research in 

order to answer an interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made. Gorrell v. 

Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 629, 632 (E.D. Cal. 2013); L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, No. S-06-2042 LKK GGH, 

2007 WL 2781132, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2007). Further, the responding party has a duty to 

supplement any responses if the information sought is later obtained or the response provided needs 

correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).

B. DISCOVERY AT ISSUE

Interrogatory Number 7:

Identify any and all documents relating to reasons for locking up the

chapel clerks in the chapel without any supervision from 2009-2012.

Response:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous 

as to the phrase “reasons for locking up the chapel clerks in the chapel without any 

supervision from 2009-2012” and assumes disputed facts regarding locking up chapel clerks 

“without any supervision.” Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant 

responds she has no information regarding “reasons for locking up the chapel clerks in the 

chapel without any supervision from 2009-2012” and is unaware of any documents that 

would relate to such supposed reasons.

Ruling:

Plaintiff argues that the interrogatory is not vague or ambiguous, as it is a “fact” that prison 

officials locked up chapel clerks without restroom access, causing them to have to relieve 

themselves in a water drain. ECF No. 110, at 1. He also argues that this information is relevant to 

his denial of access claim because it shows that Defendants permitted unsupervised access to the 

chapel. 

As Defendant argues, whether chapel clerks were “locked up” in the chapel is not relevant to 

Plaintiff’s denial of access claim. Plaintiff argues that it shows that Defendant permitted 

Case 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB Document 120 Filed 11/04/15 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

unsupervised access to the chapel for other inmates, but locking up chapel clerks is not the same as 

permitting unsupervised access.

In any event and despite her objections, Defendant Myers provided a substantive responseshe indicated that she does not have any responsive information, and is unaware of any responsive 

documents.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory Number 7 is DENIED.

Interrogatory Number 10:

Identify any and all documents relating to any complaint, settlement, grievance, 

appeal, criticism, censure, reprimand or rebuke directed toward PVSP Warden, Associate 

Wardens, Officers, Religious Resource Manager Wendy K. Myers, Chaplain D. McGee, 

Associated Warden R. Fisher Jr., Associate Warden R.H. Trimble, chief of Inmate Appeals 

D. Foston, Examiner D. Van Leer, Examiner Pimentel prior to or subsequent to the 

Constitutional violations giving rise to this proceeding from 2008-2013.

Response:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks protected

personnel information, that is both confidential and privileged under the official information 

and federal common law privileges and confidentiality of personnel records of defendants. 

Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027 (9th Cir. 1991). Responsive documents, if any 

exist, are also protected from disclosure by the California Constitution and statutes such as 

Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8; Government Code section 6254; Civil Code sections 

1798.24 and 1798.40; Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045. Defendant further objects on 

the grounds that this information is protected from disclosure by regulation, including but not 

limited to, California Code of Regulations title 15 sections 3084.9; 3400; 3450; and 3321 and 

the CDCR DOM section 54100.25.2.

Defendant also objects that this interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome 

in seeking “any and all documents relating to any complaint, settlement, grievance, appeal 

criticism, censure, reprimand, or rebuke . . . prior to or subsequent to the Constitutional 

violations giving rise to this proceeding from 2008-2013. This interrogatory is essentially 

seeking Defendants’ personnel records for an unlimited amount of time “prior to” 2008. 

Moreover, Defendant objects that this interrogatory assumes disputed facts regarding 

“constitutional violations” giving rise to this case and is vague and ambiguous and Defendant 

is uncertain what information Plaintiff is seeking and its relation to any claims or defenses in 

this lawsuit. Subject to and without waiving these objections and limiting the response to the 

past 15 years, Defendant responds that [s]he has not been disciplined by the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for misconduct.

Case 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB Document 120 Filed 11/04/15 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

Ruling:

The Court has ruled on this interrogatory in Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response from 

Defendant Pimentel. ECF No. 113, at 3-4. The analysis is equally applicable to Defendant Myers

and Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response is DENIED.

Interrogatory Number 11

Identify any and all documents relating to inmates that were on C-status from 2009-

2013.

Response:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and 

seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). Defendant also objects to this interrogatory to

the extent Plaintiff is seeking information regarding other inmates. Such information is

confidential and its disclosure would violate other inmates’ right to privacy, and its 

disclosure could jeopardize the safety and security of other inmates, staff, and CDCR

institutions and will not be provided. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3321. Subject to and

without waiving the foregoing objections, documents generally relating to c-status of

inmates are as follows: California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3044 (2009-20113).

As a further response, Defendant refers Plaintiff to his Central File, which contains

documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s discipline and classification, and the following

documents previously produced to Plaintiff with Defendants’ Initial Disclosures: CDCR 

Pleasant Valley State Prison Supplement to Department Operations Manual sections 

101060.1-101060.11, April 2011 and June 2008, Bates No. CDCR 00573-00611; and

Documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s c-status and classification from 2009 through 2012

(Bates No. CDCR 00419- 00533; CDCR 00570-00571).

These base stamped documents have already been produced. 

Ruling:

The Court has ruled on this interrogatory in Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response from 

Defendant Pimentel. ECF No. 113, at 4. The analysis is equally applicable to Defendant Myers and 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response is DENIED.

Interrogatories Numbers 27-41:

For Interrogatories 27-41, Plaintiff did not obtain leave of Court prior to serving the 

additional interrogatories, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), and Defendant 

correctly objects on that basis.

In the Court’s October 5, 2015, order on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from 

Defendants, the Court explained that Plaintiff had already served a First Set of Interrogatories on all 

Case 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB Document 120 Filed 11/04/15 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

Defendants. Given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court was lenient in allowing and reviewing the 

discovery. He served additional interrogatories on Defendant Pimentel, and the Court again allowed 

and reviewed the discovery. In each motion, the Court ordered Defendants to respond to at least 

some of the extra interrogatories. 

However, given the amount of discovery he has propounded, Plaintiff was placed on notice 

that objections to additional interrogatories served without leave of Court would be upheld. ECF 

No. 112, at 3. 

Plaintiff’s additional interrogatories have become burdensome to Defendants. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory Numbers 27-41 is DENIED.

ORDER

For the reasons above, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant Myers 

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB Document 120 Filed 11/04/15 Page 5 of 5