Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00066/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00066-35/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX LAMOTA MARTI, 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S 

ALL- INCLUSIVE MOTION TO COMPEL

vs. (Doc. 203.)

F. PADILLA, et al., ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE FURTHER

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY

REQUESTS, AS INSTRUCTED BY THIS ORDER,

WITHIN FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS

ORDER CLOSING DISCOVERY EXCEPT FOR 

LIMITED PURPOSE

 /

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Alex Lamota Marti (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on January 12, 2007. (Doc.

1.) This action now proceeds on the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on July 9, 2007, against

twenty-two defendants (“Defendants”), on Plaintiff claims for retaliation under the First Amendment.1

(Doc. 20.) 

On September 24, 2008, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order establishing a deadline

of May 17, 2009 for completion of discovery, and a deadline of July 17, 2009 for the filing of pretrial

All twenty-two of the Defendants have answered the complaint. (Docs. 52, 66-3 at Exh. A, 78, 84-2 at Exh. A,

1

172.)

1

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 1 of 18
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

dispositive motions. (Doc. 54.) Upon requests by the parties, the Court extended the deadlines;

however, the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines are now expired. (Docs. 117, 123, 124, 141,

142, 150, 152, 156, 157, 166, 167, 169, 171.) 

Between March 4, 2009 and November 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed seven motions to compel

discovery responses. (Docs. 107, 127, 129, 134, 139, 147, 148.) On March 30, 2010, the Court denied

Plaintiff’s seven motions to compel as moot. (Doc. 165.) On September 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed another

motion to compel. (Doc. 187.) 

On September 29, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 173.) 

Plaintiff has been granted an extension of time until November 14, 2011 to file an opposition to the

Motion. (Doc. 214.)

On January 28, 2011, Plaintiff was granted until March 2, 2011 to file one, all-inclusive motion

to compel, to enable him to defend against the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 193.) On March

1, 2011, Plaintiff filed an all-inclusive motion to compel. (Doc. 203.) On May 6, 2011, Defendants filed

an opposition. (Doc. 207.) On June 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a reply. (Doc. 212.) Plaintiff’s allinclusive motion to compel is now before the Court.

II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS ANDFIRSTAMENDMENT RETALIATION CLAIMS

Plaintiff was incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) in

Corcoran, California, at the time the events at issue allegedlyoccurred. Plaintiff brings retaliation claims

against twenty-two defendants who were all employees of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) at SATF while Plaintiff was incarcerated there.

Plaintiff alleges in the Amended Complaint as follows. 

On January 28, 2005, Plaintiff made a court appearance on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

regarding conditions of confinement at SATF. Upon Plaintiff’s return from court, defendants

Correctional Officer (“C/O”) F. Padilla and C/O Sidney Knight approached Plaintiff, threatened him

with retaliation for having taken the CDCR to court, and cautioned him to go easy on the CDCR

witnesses.

///

///

2

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 2 of 18
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

On February 8, 2005, defendants C/O Padilla and C/O McGuirt demoted Plaintiff from a paid

position on the yard crew to a temporary non-paid position, in retaliation for his court action against the

CDCR. Plaintiff filed a grievance against C/O Padilla and C/O McGuirt for the demotion.

On March 2, 2005, defendants C/O Padilla and C/O McGuirt filed a false Rules Violation Report

(“RVR”) against Plaintiff, as further retaliation for Plaintiff’s court action and his grievance about the

demotion.

On May 18, 2005, defendant C/O McGuirt escorted Plaintiff to the Reception and Release area

to access Plaintiff’s stored legal materials. McGuirt told Plaintiff he should refrain from addressing

grievances to the sergeant or suffer the consequences. This was in retaliation for Plaintiff discussing a

pending administrative appeal with Sergeant Sekula (not a defendant).

On July 15, 2005, defendant C/O Knight fabricated a RVR against Plaintiff, at the behest of

defendant McGuirt, in retaliation for Plaintiff’s court case and grievances.

On August 14, 2005, defendant C/O F. Ramirez terminated Plaintiff’s visit with his mother for

no valid reason. Plaintiff and his mother both filed grievances against C/O Ramirez. C/O Ramirez

immediately retaliated by filing a false RVR against Plaintiff.

On September 2, 2005, defendants C/O W. W. Williams, Lieutenant (“Lt.”)W. S. Wadkins, CCII

L. Smart, Captain R. Hansen, Sergeant S. Smith, and C/O W. Gardner segregated Plaintiff because of 

false allegations by a confidential informant. C/O Williams and the informant wrote a false RVR. Lt.

Wadkins prepared a lock-up order, and Captain Hansen ordered the segregation and threatened Plaintiff,

while referring to Plaintiff’s history of filing grievances as justification for the segregation. Defendant

CCIIL. Smart, Plaintiff’s counselor, acted in concert with the other defendants to segregate Plaintiff and

made loud references about Plaintiff such as “We got the 602 King,” referring to the CDC 602 inmate

appeals forms filed by Plaintiff. 

Between September 2, 2005 and September 15, 2005, defendants C/O W. S. Wadkins, C/O S.

Boos, C/O R. Huise, and Lt. R. Tolson falsely asserted that multiple confidential sources had caused

Plaintiff’s segregation, when in fact the segregation was caused by one uncorraborated source. Lt.

Tolson reviewed the segregation order, further obscuring the fact that there was only one confidential

source. Captain Hansen assigned defendant C/O Knight as Plaintiff’s investigative employee, even

3

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 3 of 18
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

though Plaintiff had filed a grievance against Knight. On September 6, 2005, Hansen recused himself

from reviewing Plaintiff’s segregation order due to Plaintiff’s claim of bias. However, Hansen later

served on the Institutional Classification Committee (“ICC”) that decided to retain Plaintiff in

segregation.

On September 15, 2005, at the ICC hearing, defendant CCII Smart presented the case for

Plaintiff’s retention in segregation to ICC members Warden D. Fulks, CCIIArline, and Captain Hansen. 

Smart was abusive, lied to the committee, and denied Plaintiff the right to address the committee,

resulting in Plaintiff’s retention in segregation. The ICC members did not assess the reliability of the

confidential information, and the false pretext of multiple sources was used to retain Plaintiff.

On November 22, 2005, while in administrative segregation (“Ad-Seg”), Plaintiff received a

court orderfrom the Court of Appeals regarding conditions in Ad-Seg. On November 23, 2005, Plaintiff

gave the order to defendant C/O D. Jordt to place on file for access to legal services. Within an hour,

Plaintiff was informed he was being moved to the ASU, the most restrictive Ad-Seg Unit available in

California, which was much worse than Plaintiff’s present segregation. Defendants C/O Jordt and Sgt.

C. Munoz effected the transfer, out of retaliation for Plaintiff’s court action at the Court of Appeals. 

Plaintiff had also filed numerous grievances against defendant Jordt before the transfer.

On January 8, 2006, Plaintiff was found not guilty of the RVR that had placed him in segregation

since September 2, 2005. Lt. M. A. Baires was the Senior Hearing Officer (“SHO”) who found Plaintiff

not guilty. Lt. Baires and Captain Hansen withheld the final disposition of the RVR from January 8,

2006 until March 15, 2006, prolonging Plaintiff’s segregation long after he was found not guilty.

On February 1, 2006, Lt. Baires prepared a CDC 128 form recommending continued segregation

and transfer to another institution for Plaintiff, even though Lt. Baires was the SHO who found Plaintiff

not guilty. On March 31, 2006, Lt. Baires prepared a lock-up order to continue Plaintiff’s segregation,

recommending a transfer for false reasons.

Defendant CCII Arline, Plaintiff’s counselor, failed to schedule Plaintiff’s release from

segregation and ignored the directive dated March 3, 2006 to “Return to CSR [Classification Staff

Representative] no later than 3/18/06 with status update,” leaving Plaintiff in segregation for no valid

reason.

4

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 4 of 18
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

On April 3, 2006, defendant Captain J. Lais reviewed the lock-up order prepared by Lt. Baires

and purposely covered up the fact that no valid reason existed to retain Plaintiff in segregation. Captain

Lais denied Plaintiff an investigative employee, witnesses, and documentary evidence, preventing

Plaintiff from preparing for the ICC hearing that could release Plaintiff.

On April 10, 2006, Plaintiff was taken to an ad hoc ICC hearing before defendants Captain K.

Santoro, Captain J. Reynoso, and Chief Deputy Warden Lethel Polk. Based on the CDC 128

recommendation and lock-up order prepared by Lt. Baires, and ignoring the not guilty finding, Plaintiff

was ordered to be retained in segregation in ASU for ninety more days and transferred to another

institution.

On May 11, 2006, Plaintiff’s administrative appeal was granted and he was released from

segregation to Facility D. The appeal determined that no reason existed for Plaintiff’s retention in

segregation and transfer. Plaintiff’s privileges and status were restored by ICC action. Upon Plaintiff’s

arrival at Facility D, defendants CCII Smart and C/O Williams ordered Plaintiff to be placed on

orientation status, which extended his segregation by fifteen more days. Smart and Williams had no

authority to place Plaintiff on orientation status, overriding the ICC’s decision and acting solely in

retaliation against Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff’s total placement in segregation consisted of 267 days. 

Retaliation Claim

“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic

elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of

(3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First

Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” 

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005).

III. MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel pursuant to the Court’s order of January 28, 2011, which

directed Plaintiff to “file one, all-inclusive motion to compel specifically identifying all the facts and

evidence to which Plaintiff believes he is entitled in order to oppose Defendants’ Motion [for Summary

///

5

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 5 of 18
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

Judgment] and to which he has been denied access by Defendants in previous requests for discovery.” 

(Order, Doc. 193 at 3:19-22.) 

A. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b), 33(a), 34(a), 36(a), and 37

Under Rule 26(b), “[U]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as

follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's

claim or defense — including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any

documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any

discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of anymatter relevant to the subject

matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery

appears reasonablycalculated to lead to the discoveryof admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Pursuant to Rule 33, an interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under

Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). Pursuant to Rule 34(a), “any party may serve on any other party

a request to produce and permit the party making the request . . . to inspect and copy any designated

documents . . . which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is

served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). 

Pursuant to Rule 36, “[a] party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for

purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating

to facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and the genuineness of any described

documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). 

Pursuant to Rule 37(a), a party propounding discoverymay seek an order compelling disclosure

when an opposing party has failed to respond or has provided evasive or incomplete responses. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(3). Rule 37(a)(2)(B) empowers a propounding party to bring a motion to compel

discovery responses “ if a party, in response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails

to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested, the

discovering partymaymove for ... an order compelling inspection in accordance with the request.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B). An evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response is to be treated as a

failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). The failure to respond to document

requests “may not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party

6

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 6 of 18
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

failing to act has a pending motion for protective order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). It is well established

that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any

objection.” Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir.1992) (citing

Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir.1981)). The moving party bears the burden of

demonstrating “actual and substantial prejudice” from the denial of discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan,

296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted.). 

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order compellingDefendants to respond to four specific requests

for discovery. First, Plaintiff seeks the exact date on which defendant C/O F. Ramirez concluded her

employment with SATF. Second, Plaintiff seeks copies of documents pertaining to the role of J. Garza

in Plaintiff’s placement in segregation on September 2, 2005. Third, Plaintiff seeks copies of all CDC

114A-1 Forms, also known as CDC114 Segregation Log Books, pertaining to Plaintiff’s segregation at

SATF from September 2, 2005 until May 11, 2006. Fourth, Plaintiff seeks information and copies of

documents pertaining to the Program Status Report (“PSR”) prepared by defendant Lt. Baires on August

26, 2005. 

Plaintiff also requests the Court to “explore all discovery requested by Plaintiff that was not

adequately responded to, correct the fallacies, and issue[] all just orders to allow Plaintiff to properly

prosecute this action.” (Motion to Compel (“Pltf’s Motion”), Doc. 203 at 59-60.) Plaintiff argues that

the Court prevented him from obtaining any discovery because his prior motions to compel were denied

as moot and he was ordered to file one, all-inclusive motion. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants were

evasive in all discovery. 

C. Discussion

The Court shall not address Plaintiff’s prior motions to compel, explore all of the discovery

requested by Plaintiff in this action, or address Plaintiff’s general complaints that Defendants were

evasive in all discovery. On March 30, 2010, the Court denied all of Plaintiff’s prior pending motions

to compel as moot. (Doc. 165.) Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed on September 13, 2010 is also moot

in light of the Court’s order of January 28, 2011. (Doc. 187.) The Court’s order of January 28, 2011

ordered Plaintiff to file “one, all-inclusive motion to compel specifically identifying all the facts and

7

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 7 of 18
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

evidence to which Plaintiff believes he is entitled in order to oppose Defendants’ Motion [for Summary

Judgment] and to which he has been denied access by Defendants in previous requests for discovery.” 

(Order, Doc. 193 at 3:20-22.) The Court advised Plaintiff “not [to] merely refer to previous motions or

previously-denied motions to compel.” (Id. at 3:5-6.) Therefore, the only motion to compel now

pending is Plaintiff’s all-inclusive motion filed March 1, 2011, and the Court shall only address the four

specific requests for discovery identified in the all-inclusive motion. 

1. Request for Defendant C/O F. Ramirez’ Dates of Employment

Plaintiff requests an order compelling defendant C/O F. Ramirez to provide him with the exact

date on which Ramirez concluded her employment with SATF. Plaintiff asserts that he requested this

information in his Interrogatories to defendant F. Ramirez, Set One, No. 9 and Set Two, Nos. 1 & 2, and

received inadequate responses. Plaintiff contends that this evidence will enable him to present a genuine

issue of material fact in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to

defendants Arline, Baires, Lais, Santoro, Reynoso and Polk. 

Set One, Interrogatory 9. "State the date of the commencement of your employment at

the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State

Prison (CSATF-SP) at Corcoran, and the date on which you

concluded your employment at said prison. If for some reason

you terminated your employment with the CSATF-SP, and

subsequently returned to said prison please explain."

(Pltf’s Motion, Doc. 203 at 79 (Exh. 3.))2

Defendant’s Response. “Responding party objects to this interrogatory

as seeking information protected by California

Evidence Code section 1043, California Penal

Code section 832.7, and the federal and state

constitutional right to privacy. Further, the

interrogatory is compound.” 

(Id. at 90 (Exh. 4.)) 

Set Two, Interrogatory 1. "State the date that you concluded your employment at the

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State

Prison (CSATF-SP) at Corcoran. Plaintiff’s Interrogatory

Number 1 is based on the fact that on May 11, 2006, Plaintiff

was released from Administrative Segregation back to Facility

D, at CSATF. (See ‘STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT’, DUF # 270, which states, ‘On or

around May 11, 2006, the ICC elected to release Marti to

When the pagination used by a party in a document differs from the pagination used by the Court’s electronic filing

2

system, the Court uses the pagination of the Court’s electronic filing system.

8

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 8 of 18
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

Facility D and keep him at SATF. Marti was satisfied with the

decision at that time. (Ex.Z(GatlingDecl.), Ex.2 at 86:16-21.)’)

and the Attached Exhibit A to this document, which is a true

and correct copy of the CDC-128 G, dated 5-11-06, ‘ICC/ADSEG CLASSIFICATION’ Chrono that states in relevant part,

‘This recorder [R. Gomez] was informed the officer [F.

Ramirez] has since transferred to another institution (refer to

confidential 128 B dated May 11, 2006). There are no other

issues that warrant retention in ASU.’” 

(Id. at 179-80 (Exh. 14.)) 

Defendant’s Response. “I am in receipt of your . . . ‘Second Set of

Interrogatories to Defendant F. Ramirez” . . .

dated August 25, 2010. Discovery in this matter

has long since closed. Accordingly, I will not be

responding to your discovery requests.”

(Id. at 192 (Exh. 16.)) 

Set Two, Interrogatory 2. "If the date that you concluded your employment at California

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (CSATFSP) at Corcoran, is a different date than the date of your last

day of work at CSATF-SP, please state the last date that you

worked at CSATF-SP.” 

(Id. at 180 (Exh. 14).) 

Defendant’s Response. “I am in receipt of your . . . ‘Second Set of

Interrogatories to Defendant F. Ramirez” . . .

dated August 25, 2010. Discovery in this matter

has long since closed. Accordingly, I will not be

responding to your discovery requests.”

(Id. at 192 (Exh. 16.)) 

Defendant argues that defendant C/O F. Ramirez’ dates of employment are protected by

California Evidence Code section 1043, California Penal Code section 832.7, and the federal and state

constitutional right to privacy. Plaintiff argues that this is not privileged information, as shown by

defendant Captain Hansen’s disclosure of his last day at SATF and disclosure of the name of the prison

to which he transferred. (Id. at 243 ¶27 (Exh. 25.))

Section 1043 of the California Evidence Code requires a party seeking discovery of peace or

custodial officer personnel records to file a motion with the appropriate court identifying the discovery

sought, the party seeking discovery, the officer whose records are sought, and the agency which has

custody and control of the records, along with an affidavit showing good cause for the discovery. 

Cal.Evid.Code § 1043.

Section 832.7 oftheCaliforniaPenal Code provides, “Peace officer or custodial officer personnel

records and records maintained by any state or local agency . . ., or information obtained from these

9

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 9 of 18
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

records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding, [with some

exceptions].” Cal.Penal Code § 832.7. 

“Questions of privilege that arise in the course of the adjudication of federal rights are ‘governed

by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the

light of reason and experience.’” United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562, 109 S.Ct. 2619, 2625 (1989)

(quoting Federal Rule of Evidence 501). Despite claims of privilege, personnel files are discoverable

in federal question cases. Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1519 n. 6 (9th

Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). While this Court may give some weight to privacy rights protected by

state statutes, the “ultimate responsibility for deciding how much weight to ascribe to such interests, and

how that weight compares with the significance of competing interests, must reside with the federal

courts.” Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 656 (N.D.Cal. 1987). 

Defendant’s objection is overruled. The Court will allow Plaintiff to discover the exact dates

of defendant C/O Ramirez’ employment at SATF. In this instance, Defendant Ramirez’ interest in

keeping her employment dates confidential is outweighed by Plaintiff’s right to discovery of relevant

evidence. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is based in part on the assertion that their

decision to continue Plaintiff’s detention in Ad-Seg was based on his danger to the safety and security

of inmates, staff members, and the institution, and not on retaliation against Plaintiff. (MSJ, Doc. 173.) 

Defendant Ramirez’ employment dates are relevant to disprove that Defendants’ action in retaining

Plaintiff in Ad-Seg and recommending Plaintiff’s transfer reasonablyadvanced a legitimate correctional

goal after defendant F. Ramirez was no longer working at SATF. Defendant F. Ramirez shall be

required to serve upon Plaintiff a response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set One, Number 9. Defendant

F. Ramirez shall provide Plaintiff with the date of the commencement of her employment at SATF, and

the date on which she concluded her employment at SATF. Defendant F. Ramirez shall also provide

Plaintiff with an explanation if for some reason she terminated her employment with SATF and

subsequently returned to said prison. No objections are permitted. 

2. Request for Documents Pertaining to J. Garza’s Role

Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendants to produce copies of all documents pertaining

to the role of J. Garza in Plaintiff’s placement in segregation on September 2, 2005. Plaintiff asserts that

10

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 10 of 18
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

Requests 2 and 17 of his First Request for Production of Documents should have elicited this

information, but Defendants failed to provide it and instead “ambushed” Plaintiff by revealing

information about J. Garza in the Motion for Summary Judgment.

 First Request, No. 2. "All written statements, originals or copies, identifiable as

reports pertaining to plaintiff made by any and all defendants,

and any and all prison and civilian employees or the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and any and all

prisoner witnesses, including any and all prisoners acting as

confidential informants pertaining to any and all incidents,

investigations, or allegations made against plaintiff, including

but not limited to plaintiff’s stay at the California Substance

Abuse Treatment Facility.”

(Pltf’s Motion, Doc. 203 at 130 (Exh. 9.)) 

Defendants’ Response. “Responding Parties object to this request for

production on the grounds that it is overbroad

and not reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence, because it

seeks documents not pertinent to the subject

matter of this lawsuit. Responding Parties also

object on the grounds that it calls for production

of confidential documents covered by the official

information privilege. Without waiving these

objections, Responding Parties have produced

all documents responsive to this request in their

possession, custody, and control in response to

request for production of documents 1.”

(Id. at 144 (Exh. 10.)) 

First Request, No. 17. "All documents that evidence, mention, construe, or refer to the

segregation of plaintiff on 9/2/05, and the rules violation report

prepared by defendant W.W. Williams, and the reports by

confidential informants, reports of multiple sources, reviews of

segregation orders, hearings, investigative reports, reports by

the committee held on 9/15/05, assessments of confidential

reports, and any and all documents pertaining to the period of

administrative segregation and rules violation reports

commenced on 9/2/05.” 

(Id. at 136 (Exh. 9.)) 

Defendants’ Response. “Responding parties object to this request for

production on the grounds that it is vague and

ambiguous as to the meaning of the terms

‘reports of multiple sources’ and ‘any and all

documents pertaining to the period of

administrative segregation and rules violation

reports commenced on 9/2/05.’ Responding

Parties also object on the grounds that the

request calls for documents covered by the

official information privilege. Without waiving

these objections, Responding Parties produce all

responsive documents in their possession,

11

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 11 of 18
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

custody, and control asBates-stamped document

D00001.”

(Id. at 151 (Exh. 10.)) 

Plaintiff contends that he requires these documents to ascertain that Defendants are not hiding

information from him. Plaintiff asserts that when he received Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment, he discovered therein that J. Garza and defendant Williams had both prepared the

Confidential Memorandum to effect his segregation. Plaintiff was not aware, until reviewing the Motion

for Summary Judgment, that J. Garza was involved. Plaintiff explains that J. Garza is the person who

on May 31, 2006 had other confidential information that Plaintiff made another threat, this time to C/O

Williams, and Garza placed Plaintiff in Ad-Seg again. This is the subject of Plaintiff’s second lawsuit

in this Court, 1:08-cv-00653, Marti v. Baires. Plaintiff claims that this “Garza” factor closes the ties

between the two civil rights actions. Plaintiff maintains that Defendants failed to disclose all the

documents pertaining to his segregation. Plaintiff argues that because Defendants failed to disclose

Garza’s participation until the Motion for Summary Judgment, then Defendants must be hiding other

information he asked for. Plaintiff argues that evidence about J. Garza will enable him to present a

genuine issue of material fact in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, by showing

causal connections of Defendants to prove retaliatory actions. 

Defendants respond that Plaintiff alreadyhas in his possession the relevant documents pertaining

to his Ad-Seg placement on September 2, 2005, and that tying two civil rights cases together is not the

purpose of Rule 56(d). Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not explained how the “Garza” factor is

necessary to adequately oppose the Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Court sustains Defendants’ objections that Plaintiff’s Requests 2 and 17 are vague,

overbroad, and ambiguous. The Court shall not require Defendants to respond to a fishing expedition

by Plaintiff based on speculation that Defendants possess information they have not disclosed.

Moreover, J. Garza is not a defendant to this action, and Plaintiff has not sufficiently explained how the

“Garza” factor, or tying his two cases together, is relevant to oppose the Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Defendants shall not be required to produce additional documents in response to these requests. 

///

///

12

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 12 of 18
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. Request for Production of Segregation Log Books

Plaintiff requests all CDC 114A-1 Forms, also known as CDC114 Segregation Log Books,

pertaining to Plaintiff’s segregation at SATF from September 2, 2005 until May 11, 2006, and his

segregation beginning on May 31, 2006. Plaintiff asserts that he requested this information in Requests

5, 17, and 19 of his First Request for Production of Documents, and Request 2 of his Third Request for

Production of Documents, and received inadequate responses. 

First Request, No. 5. "All documents that evidence, mention, or refer to plaintiff’s

conduct or disciplinary history, at the California Substance

Abuse Treatment Facility or at any other prison, including but

not limited to plaintiff’s placement in any administrative

segregation units. All records, logs, or any and all segregation

housing units’ records, including but not limited to any and all

CDC 114 Logs prepared pertaining to plaintiff’s segregation

periods at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility

at Corcoran that are in the possession, custody or control of

defendants or any other prison or civilian employees or the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.”

(Pltf’s Motion, Doc. 203 at 131-132 (Exh. 9.)) 

Defendants’ Response. “Responding parties object to this request for

production on the grounds that it is overbroad

and not reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence, because it

seeks documents not pertinent to the subject

matter of this lawsuit. Without waiving these

objections, and after a diligent search,

Responding Parties do not have possession

custody or control of documents responsive to

this request.”

(Id. at 145 (Exh. 10.)) 

First Request, No. 17. "All documents that evidence, mention, construe, or refer to the

segregation of plaintiff on 9/2/05, and the rules violation report

prepared by defendant W.W. Williams, and the reports by

confidential informants, reports of multiple sources, reviews of

segregation orders, hearings, investigative reports, reports by

the committee held on 9/15/05, assessments of confidential

reports, and any and all documents pertaining to the period of

administrative segregation and rules violation reports

commenced on 9/2/05.” 

(Id. at 136 (Exh. 9.)) 

Defendants’ Response. “Responding parties object to this request for

production on the grounds that it is vague and

ambiguous as to the meaning of the terms

‘reports of multiple sources’ and ‘any and all

documents pertaining to the period of

administrative segregation and rules violation

reports commenced on 9/2/05.’ Responding

13

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 13 of 18
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

Parties also object on the grounds that the

request calls for documents covered by the

official information privilege. Without waiving

these objections, RespondingParties produce all

responsive documents in their possession,

custody, and control as Bates-stamped document

D00001.”

(Id. at 151 (Exh. 10.)) 

First Request, No. 19. "All documents that evidence, mention, construe, or refer to the

rules violation report hearing held on 1/08/06 by defendant

M.A. Baires, including but not limited to the CDC 114 Log for

plaintiff, and any and all other entries made by any prison or

civilian employee including but not limited to the Log entries

made by defendant M.A. Baires. This request includes the

entries made by all prison employees working in ASU on 1-08-

06 on the date said hearing was held for plaintiff. All

documents prepared by M.A. Baires including but not limited

to any documents prepared on 2-1-06, and 3-31-06, these

documents should include but not be limited to any CDC-128s,

CDC-114 Ds, encompassing all aspects of plaintiff’s

segregation that started on 9-2-05.” 

(Id. at 137 (Exh. 9.)) 

Defendants’ Response. “Responding Parties object to this request for

production on the grounds that it is overbroad,

unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous. 

Without waiving these objections, Responding

Parties produce those non-confidential,

responsive documents in their possession,

custody, and control as Bates-stamped document

E00001.”

(Id. at 152 (Exh. 10.)) 

Third Request, No. 2. "Produce the complete CDC 114A-1 Forms (Inmate

Segregation Profile), also known as ‘CDC114 Segregation Log

Book’ for Plaintiff’s segregated period commencing on

September 2, 2005 to and including May 11, 2006. Said CDC

Forms 114A-1 (Inmate Segregation Profile) are described as

containing at least records of Plaintiff’s committee’s actions

and decisions by Defendant R. HANSEN in his ‘Declaration of

R. Hansen in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment’ at ¶ 16, and dated June 30, 2010. (stating in

relevant part ‘My role [Defendant R. HANSEN’S] on this

particular committee [9/15/2005] was to record and document

the committee’s actions and decision on CDC 114A-1 (Inmate

Segregation Profile....’).”

(Id. at 186-87 (Exh. 15.)) 

Defendants’ Response. “I am in receipt of your . . . ‘Third Request for

Production of Documents, First Post Service of

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,’

dated August 25, 2010. Discovery in this matter

///

14

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 14 of 18
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

has long since closed. Accordingly, I will not be

responding to your discovery requests.”

(Id. at 192 (Exh. 16.)) 

Plaintiff asserts that § 3344(b) of the California Code of Regulations proves that the Log Books

exist, because it requires that a separate Administrative Segregation Log, CDC Form 114, must be

maintained for each segregation, from reception to release, entered on the form in chronological order.

Defendants’ objections are sustained with respect to documents concerning the May 31, 2006

segregation. Documentation of Plaintiff’s May 31, 2006 segregation is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims

in this action. This action arises from Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants retained him in Ad-Seg at

SATF from September 2, 2005 to May 11, 2006. Plaintiff admits that his segregation beginning on May

31, 2006 is the subject of another lawsuit, and he not shown how tying his two cases together will assist

in his opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Therefore, discovery of documents concerning

Plaintiff’s later segregation, beginning on May 31, 2006, are not relevant to oppose Defendants’ Motion

for SummaryJudgment in this action. The Court shall not compel Defendants to produce documents that

are not relevant. 

With respect to the Administrative Segregation Log for Plaintiff’s segregation from September

2, 2005 to May 11, 2006, Plaintiff is entitled to such documentation if it exists. Defendants’ argument

that Plaintiff has all of the documentation he needs overlooks the possibility that other documentation

of the September 2, 2005 segregation may contain information relevant to support Plaintiff’s argument,

in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, that his prolonged segregation did not reasonably

advance a legitimate correctional goal. 

Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s Request 5 of the First Request for Production of Documents

that “after a diligent search, Responding Parties do not have possession custody or control of documents

responsive to this request.” (Pltf’s Motion, Doc. 203 at 145 (Exh. 10.)) The Court finds it unlikely that

after a diligent search, Defendants were unable to locate any documents in response to Plaintiff’s request

for “[a]ll documents that evidence, mention, or refer to plaintiff’s conduct or disciplinary history, at the

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility or at any other prison, including but not limited to

plaintiff’s placement in any administrative segregation units.” (Id. at 131-132 (Exh. 9.)) The Court

agrees that Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad and often vague. However, Plaintiff clearly requested “the

15

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 15 of 18
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

complete CDC 114A-1 Forms (Inmate Segregation Profile), also known as ‘CDC114 Segregation Log

Book’ for Plaintiff’s segregated period commencing on September 2, 2005 to and including May 11,

2006.” (Id. at 186-87 (Exh. 15.)) Under Rule 34(a), Plaintiff has the right to request from any party

production of documents "which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the

request is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Although Defendants cannot be compelled to produce an

item that is not within their possession, custody, or control, Defendants are advised that “[a] party need

not have actual possession of documents to be deemed in control of them.” Clark v. Vega Wholesale

Inc., 181 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D.Nev. 1998) quoting Estate of Young v. Holmes, 134 F.R.D. 291, 294

(D.Nev. 1991). “A party that has a legal right to obtain certain documents is deemed to have control of

the documents.” Clark 181 F.R.D. at 472. Plaintiff correctly notes that Title 15, § 3344(b) of the

California Code of Regulations holds that a “separate record will be maintained for each inmate assigned

to administrative segregation, . . . compiled on CDC Form 144-A, Detention/Segregation Record . . .

[containing] all significant information relating to the inmate during the course of segregation, from

reception to release . . . in chronological order.” Cal.Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3344(b). 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants shall be required to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the

Detention/Segregation Record kept pursuant to Cal.Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3344(b), for Plaintiff’s

detention in segregation from September 2, 2005 to May 11, 2006 at SATF, within forty-five days. No

objections are permitted. If the document contains confidential information, Defendants shall instead

submit the document to the Court under seal for in camera review, and notify Plaintiff that they have

done so, within forty-five days. If Defendants cannot produce a copyof the document, theymust explain

in writing why they are unable to do so. 

4. Information Pertaining to Program Status Report of August 26, 2005

Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendants to produce any documents related to a threat

to assault a Correctional Officer, of which C/O A. Davila was notified on August 26, 2005, documented

by a Program Status Report (PSR) prepared by defendant Baires on August 26, 2005. Plaintiff believes 

the August 26, 2005 PSR may be related to his segregation of September 2, 2005, due to similar dates

and descriptions of the incidents. Both concern a threat of assault on a Correctional Officer by inmates

in the Facility D gymnasium, made on August 25 or 26, 2005. 

16

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 16 of 18
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

Specifically, Plaintiff requests documentation of interviews conducted on or about August 29,

2005, as ordered by defendant Baires in the PSR, and further responses to his First Request for

Admissions to Defendant Baires and First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant M.A. Baires. Plaintiff

claims that defendant Baires’ prior responses were evasive. Plaintiff claims that information about this

threat to a Correctional Officer is necessary to adequately oppose the Motion for Summary Judgment,

because C/O A. Davila was defendant C/O Williams’ partner, and it was defendant C/O Williams who

received confidential information that on August 25, 2005, Plaintiff made threats to kill defendant F.

Ramirez. Thus Plaintiff maintains that the facts of the August 26, 2005 threat are closely related to the

alleged threat that placed Plaintiff in segregation on September 2, 2005. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff already has in his possession the relevant documents pertaining

to his Ad-Seg placement on September 2, 2005, and Plaintiff fails to explain how evidence of a prior

threat is necessary to adequately oppose Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants

provide a list of twenty documents related to Plaintiff’s segregation which are in Plaintiff’s possession. 

(Opp’n, Doc. 207 at 4-5, ¶3.) Defendants also argue that the information requested by Plaintiff is

confidential.

This case arises from Plaintiff claims that he was placed in Ad-Seg on September 2, 2005, based

on a false RVR. Defendants argue that Plaintiff was placed in Ad-Seg after defendant Williams received

evidence on September 2, 2005 of a possible threat made by Plaintiff against defendant F. Ramirez. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated how evidence of a prior threat, even if related to the threat that led to his

placement in Ad-Seg, will assist him in defending against the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Therefore, Defendants shall not be required to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s discovery

requests concerning the PSR of August 26, 2005.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed March 1, 2011, is GRANTED IN PART;

2. Within forty five (45) days of the date of service of this order, defendant C/O F. Ramirez

shall provide a written response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set One, No. 9, as

instructed by this order;

17

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 17 of 18
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. Within forty five (45) days of the date of service of this order, Defendants shall provide

copies of the Detention/Segregation Record kept pursuant to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §

3344(b), for Plaintiff’s detention in segregation from September 2, 2005 to May 11,

2006, as instructed by this order; 

4. Defendants’ failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions

deemed appropriate by this Court; and

5. Discovery in this action is now closed, except for the limited purpose of resolving

Plaintiff’s motion to compel as instructed by this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 30, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 217 Filed 08/31/11 Page 18 of 18