Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01558/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01558-5/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

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

 The disposition of this motion by the undersigned shall constitute an exclusive exception to

the general distribution of case-related matters set forth by Civil Local Rule 72.1(b) and statutorily

authorized by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, the assigned magistrate judge shall continue

to “determine any pretrial motions, including discovery motions, other than the dispositive motions

which are specified in 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A).” See Civ. L.R. 72.1(b). 

- 1 - 06cv1558

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO URIARTE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1558-MMA (WMc)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL DISCOVERY FILED

JANUARY 4, 2011

[Doc. No. 180]

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

On August 26, 2010, Francisco Uriarte (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) alleging civil rights claims

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc No. 146). On January 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Compel

Defendants’ for Production of Documents, Set One and Set Two.” (Doc. No. 180). Plaintiff’s

motion encompasses two separate sets of requests for discovery. On January 18, 2011, Defendants

filed an Opposition to the Motion to Compel. (Doc. No. 184). For the following reasons, the

Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion.1

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-01558-CAB-KSC Document 204 Filed 09/29/11 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 - 06cv1558

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery, authorizing

parties to obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s

claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, “[f]or good cause, the court may order

discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Id. Relevant

information for discovery purposes includes any information “reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence,” and need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id.

There is no requirement that the information sought directly relate to a particular issue in the case. 

Rather, relevance encompasses any matter that “bears on” or could reasonably lead to matter that

could bear on, any issue that is or may be presented in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.

Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 354 (1978). District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy

for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly,

district courts have broad discretion to limit discovery where 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Limits also should

be imposed where the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefits. Id.

Similarly, a party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule

26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response must either state that

inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request,

including the reasons.” Id. at 34(b). The responding party is responsible for all items in “the

responding party’s possession, custody, or control.” Id. at 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or

control is not required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the possession

of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has control over the

entity who is in possession of the document. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620

(N.D.Cal.1995).

DISCUSSION

At the outset, the Court notes that Defendants primarily object to Plaintiff’s requests

because they are untimely. (Def. Opp. at 3). Discovery in this case has been piecemeal and is in

Case 3:06-cv-01558-CAB-KSC Document 204 Filed 09/29/11 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 - 06cv1558

need of strict management. A review of the discovery disputes in this case shows both parties

allege improper conduct in the form of procedural irregularities against the other. Rather than

address these allegations, the Court will focus its attention on the substantive discovery disputes to

insure the case is ultimately resolved on the merits and not on procedural technicalities.

A. Plaintiff’s Request for Government Personnel Files

Plaintiff’s Request Nos. (Set No. One) 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 21, 23 seek information of prior

misconduct that may be contained in the personnel records of Defendant Jenkins, Defendant

Ritter, Defendant Camacho, Defendant Reed, Defendant Williams, Defendant Martinez, Defendant

Spence, Defendant Hurm, Defendant Jones and Defendant Ramirez. 

Specifically, Plaintiff requests that Defendants provide Plaintiff with any and all grievances

filed against Defendants Jenkins, Ritter, Camacho, Reed, William, Spence, Jones, Ramirez and

Martinez. Defendants do not specifically address any of Plaintiff’s numbered requests for

production but object on the grounds of untimeliness, relevance, and privilege. Each of these

objections will be addressed in turn. 

(i) Untimeliness

As stated above, based upon the irregular discovery schedule to date, the Court declines to

deny Plaintiff’s request for discovery as untimely. Therefore, Defendants’ objection to Plaintiff’s

discovery request on this ground is OVERRULED. 

(ii) Relevance

Plaintiff’s request is relevant. Prior misconduct by the Defendants may lead to admissible

evidence in support of Plaintiff’s claims.

(iii) Privilege

Here, Plaintiff has alleged violation of the Eighth Amendment pursuant to 42 US.C. §

1983. Assertions of privilege in federal question cases are governed by federal common law. Fed.

R. Evid. 501. However, Defendants’ privilege objections are erroneously based on state privacy

rights, as they cite only to state law and procedure. For the purposes of resolving the pending

motion to compel, the Court construes Defendants’ privacy objections in accordance with the

federally recognized privilege for official information. “Government personnel files are

Case 3:06-cv-01558-CAB-KSC Document 204 Filed 09/29/11 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 - 06cv1558

considered official information.” Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.

1990). 

It is well-settled that federal discovery rules 26 through 37 “have been interpreted liberally

to allow maximum discovery.” Spell v. McDaniel, 591 F. Supp. 1090, 1114 (1984 E.D. N.C.) 

(citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). Therefore, after review of Plaintiff’s motion to

compel, Defendants’ response, and other applicable pleadings, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendants shall produce a privilege log, and a copy of the requested personnel

records for in camera review as set forth below;

2. Discovery shall be limited to only the personnel records of Defendants Jenkins,

Ritter, Camacho, Reed, Williams, Martinez, Spence, Hurm, Jones and Ramirez; 

3. Defendants shall lodge with Magistrate Judge McCurine’s chambers, no later than

October 31, 2011: (a) a privilege log; and (b) a copy of the personnel records, for in camera

review.

4. Discovery shall further be limited to information relating only to alleged Eighth

Amendment violations in the context of excessive force and/or deliberate indifference to a serious

medical need. In addition, discovery shall be limited in time from the date of the alleged incident,

February 7, 2004, going back to January 1, 2000. 

B. Plaintiff’s Remaining Discovery Requests

(i) Request No. 24 (Set No. One)

Plaintiff seeks disclosure of “any and all documents that pertain to the above named

defendants that are relevant and material to the subject matter of the present action.” (P’s Mtn. to

Compel at 13). Defendants object to the request on the grounds that it is overly broad and the

information sought is privileged. 

Ruling: The Court agrees Plaintiff’s request is over broad, and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion

to compel the information sought by Request No. 24 (Set No. One). 

(ii) Request No. 41 (Set No. One)

Plaintiff seeks disclosure of any and all documents issued by the MAR committee with

regard to evaluations and the prescribed treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries that occurred on February

Case 3:06-cv-01558-CAB-KSC Document 204 Filed 09/29/11 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 - 06cv1558

7, 2004. Defendant contends that Plaintiff has already been provided the complete MAR file as

issued by the MAR Committee. 

Ruling: Based upon Defendants’ representations, no further response is required and the

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel with respect to Request No. 41 (Set No. One).

(iii) Request No. 1 (Set No. 2)

Plaintiff seeks disclosure of all grievances and complaints made against Defendant

Martinez regarding the mistreatment of inmates. Defendants contend the request is vague,

ambiguous, overbroad, compound, irrelevant, and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. (P’s Exhibit G) 

Ruling: The information sought by this request is duplicative of Plaintiff’s request for

production of the Defendants’ personnel files. Accordingly, the Court DENIES this request as

MOOT. Information regarding grievances and complaints made against Defendant Martinez will

be produced for in camera review in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the Court in

response to Plaintiff’s Request Nos. (Set No. One) 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 21, 23. See, supra, p.3:1-4:13.

(iv) Request No. 2 (Set No. Two)

Plaintiff seeks any policy, instructions or other directives regarding “proper” use of the cell

doors installed December 3, 2003. Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is

vague, ambiguous as to time, overly broad, and seeks documents that may show subsequent

remedial measures have been taken, which are not discoverable. However, Defendants agree to

produce all non-privileged documents relevant to Plaintiff’s request that are not subject to any

objection noted herein. (P’s Exhibit G). 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. Whether Defendants were instructed on the proper

use of the newly installed cell doors is not relevant to whether Defendants knowingly and

deliberately violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. 

(v) Requests No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (Set No. Two)

In each of these requests, Plaintiff seeks disclosure of any written reports or other

documentation regarding complaints against correctional officers who are not parties to this

litigation that were brought by inmates who are not parties to this litigation. Defendants object on

Case 3:06-cv-01558-CAB-KSC Document 204 Filed 09/29/11 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 - 06cv1558

the grounds that these requests are vague, over broad, irrelevant, and not calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. (Exhibit G)

Ruling: Plaintiff’s requests seeks non-relevant information and is therefore DENIED.

 (vi) Request No. 10

Plaintiff seeks disclosure of any grievances filed against Defendant Martinez. Defendant

objects. 

Ruling: This request is duplicative of two prior requests made by Plaintiff and is DENIED

as MOOT. See, supra, p.3:1-4:13, 4:27-5:7.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to compel [Doc. No. 180] is GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:06-cv-01558-CAB-KSC Document 204 Filed 09/29/11 Page 6 of 6