Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401-5/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

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

Plaintiff Isaiah J. Petillo is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed March 23, 2022. (ECF No. 

17.) 

I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding against Defendants Reynaldo Jasso and V. Ochoa for excessive force 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On November 29, 2021, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 10.) 

On November 30, 2021, the Court set a post-screening settlement conference before Magistrate 

Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on February 24, 2022. (ECF No. 11.) 

ISAIAH J. PETILLO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

REYNALDO JASSO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:21-cv-01401-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 17)

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 4
2

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

However, on December 23, 2021, Defendants filed a notice to opt-out of the settlement 

conference. (ECF No. 12.) Therefore, on January 3, 2022, the Court vacated the settlement 

conference and issued the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.) 

As previously stated, on March 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel 

Defendants to answer his first set of interrogatories. (ECF No. 17.) Defendants filed an opposition on 

April 18, 2022. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff has not yet had an opportunity to respond to Defendants’ 

opposition, but the Court finds a response unnecessary. Plaintiff’s motion is deemed submitted. Local 

Rule 230(l).

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of 

confinement. As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would 

otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to 

involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 14. Further, where otherwise discoverable information 

would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or infringe upon a protected privacy 

interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in determining whether disclosure should 

occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (privacy 

rights or interests implicit in broad purpose and language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe 

Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(discussing assertion of privilege); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) 

(recognizing a constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia 

v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB PC, 2012 WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) 

(noting inmate’s entitlement to inspect discoverable information may be accommodated in ways which 

mitigate institutional safety concerns); Robinson v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 

WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012) (issuing protective order regarding documents 

containing information which implicated the safety and security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. 

CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 4
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

protective order and for redaction of information asserted to risk jeopardizing safety and security of 

inmates or the institution if released); Womack v. Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 

6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (requiring defendants to submit withheld documents for in 

camera review or move for a protective order). 

However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The 

discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of 

discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 

1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Parties may obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged 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.” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel 

bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV 

S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at 

*3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis 

v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 

This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the 

motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why 

the responding party’s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 

2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4. 

However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these 

procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigant; therefore, to the extent possible, the 

Court endeavors to resolve his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 

606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 

2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/19/22 Page 3 of 4
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

III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to answer his first set of interrogatories 

numbers 1 through 25. (ECF No. 17.) 

In response, Defendants submit that they served Plaintiff with responses to his first set of 

interrogatories and produced photographs in response to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production 

of documents on March 11, 2022 while Plaintiff was housed at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, 

California. (Declaration of Sheronda Edwards (Edwards Decl.) ¶ 3 & Ex. A.) However, on March 14, 

2022 and March 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed notices of change of address from Kern Valley State Prison to 

Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, California. (ECF Nos. 16, 18.) Consequently, on April 18, 2022, 

Defendants re-served Plaintiff with their responses to his first set of interrogatories at his new mailing 

address Corcoran State Prison. (Edwards Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. B.) Because Defendants have served 

Plaintiff with responses to his first set of interrogatories at both his prior and current address of record, 

there is nothing to compel and Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied.1 

IV.

ORDER

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

March 23, 2022 (ECF No. 17), is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2022 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 However, the Court does not find merit to Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer with them prior 

to filing the instant motion to compel, as the court's discovery and scheduling order specifically exempts this case from the 

requirements of Local Rule 251, which includes the meet and confer requirement. (ECF No. 14 at 2.)

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/19/22 Page 4 of 4