Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02442/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02442-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD SPENCE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2442 LKK DAD P

vs.

M.D. McDONALD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This case is before the court on motions and requests relating to discovery and

service of process. The pending matters are addressed below in chronological order.

PLAINTIFF’S APRIL 7, 2005 REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER

Plaintiff seeks an order permitting him to serve written interrogatories on inmate

Henderson Royster. Plaintiff describes the inmate as a percipient witness and states his intention

to call this inmate at trial. Plaintiff asserts that the CDC prohibits inmates from writing or

otherwise communicating with each other, “especially if in different institutions.” Plaintiff is

confined in High Desert State Prison on D yard. He indicates that inmate Royster was transferred

from D yard to A yard in July 2003. Plaintiff wishes to serve interrogatories on inmate Royster,

wherever he is, through the Clerk of the Court and also wishes to receive the inmate’s answers

confidentially through the Clerk.

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 20
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

2

In opposition to plaintiff’s request, defendants note that Rule 33 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure does not authorize service of interrogatories on any person other than a

party. Citing state regulations, defendants assert that inmates in separate correctional facilities

may correspond with each other if prior approval of the warden of each institution is obtained. 

Plaintiff responds that he does not wish to correspond with inmate Royster. He asserts that he

wants to obtain a pre-trial statement from the inmate because doing so may avoid the cost of trial. 

He argues that his request is ex parte in nature and that defendants’ opposition is “out of order”

and lacks merit. Plaintiff contends that defendants are attempting to prevent him from obtaining

relevant testimony.

Plaintiff is advised that, except as otherwise provided by rule or order, “[a]n

application to the court for an order shall be by motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). All motions

concerning discovery must be briefed by the parties. (Order filed Apr. 20, 2004, at 3.) 

Defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s discovery request is not only “in order” but also required.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specify the methods of discovery that may

be used in federal civil cases. Rule 33, titled “Interrogatories to Parties,” provides that “any party

may serve upon any other party written interrogatories.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Neither this rule

nor any other federal discovery rule provides for service of interrogatories on non-parties.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a party to take the testimony of any

person, whether party or non-party, by deposition upon written questions. Fed. R. Civ. P.

31(a)(1). However, such depositions may not be taken without leave of court if the person to be

deposed is confined in prison. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(2). “A party desiring to take a deposition

upon written questions shall serve them upon every other party,” and any party may propose

cross-questions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(3) and (4). Testimony taken pursuant to Rule 31 must be

made available to all parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b) and (c). Neither Rule 31 nor any other federal

discovery rule permits plaintiff to use formal discovery processes to obtain confidential responses

from a witness through the Clerk of the Court.

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 20
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

3

If plaintiff wishes to obtain a statement from an inmate witness for possible use in

support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, he must do so by corresponding

with the witness in accordance with the rules applicable to correspondence between prisoners. 

Plaintiff’s request for an order permitting him to serve interrogatories on an inmate witness and

to receive confidential answers from the witness will be denied.

DEFENDANTS’ APRIL 27, 2005 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Defendants requested a fourteen-day extension of time to May 11, 2005, to serve

responses to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and first request for production of documents. 

Good cause appearing, defendants’ timely request will be granted nunc pro tunc.

PLAINTIFF’S APRIL 27, 2005 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

On April 27, 2005, plaintiff requested a thirty-day extension of time to file either a

motion to compel or the documents required for service of process on defendant J. Kelly. On

May 25, 2005, plaintiff submitted documents for service on defendant Kelly. Good cause

appearing, plaintiff’s timely request for extension of time will be granted nunc pro tunc, and the

notice of submission of documents filed May 25, 2005, will be deemed timely. By separate order

to be filed after this order has been served, the court will direct the United States Marshal to

effect service on defendant Kelly.

PLAINTIFF’S MAY 4, 2005 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

In a motion dated April 26, 2005, plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to respond

to his first set of interrogatories and first request for production of documents, both of which

were served on defendants on March 14, 2005.

Pursuant to the Discovery Order filed in this case on March 7, 2005, defendants’

responses were due forty-five days after plaintiff’s requests were first served. The forty-fifth day

after March 14, 2005, was April 28, 2005. Plaintiff’s motion to compel was prepared before

defendants’ responses were due. Moreover, on April 27, 2005, defendants filed a timely request

for an additional fourteen days in which to respond to plaintiff’s requests.

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 3 of 20
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

4

Although defendants failed to file timely opposition to plaintiff’s first motion to

compel, the court will not impose sanctions for failure to oppose a motion that should not have

been filed. Plaintiff’s first motion to compel will be denied as premature.

PLAINTIFF’S MAY 4, 2005 REQUEST TO SERVE EXCESS INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff has requested an order permitting him to propound interrogatories in

excess of twenty-five and requiring all defendants to answer the forty interrogatories propounded

to each defendant in plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories. Defendants have not filed opposition

to plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff subsequently filed a second motion to compel that includes a

request for an order compelling all defendants to respond to interrogatories beyond the first

twenty-five.

The court will grant plaintiff’s request to propound interrogatories in excess of

twenty-five. Because plaintiff did not obtain leave to do so prior to serving forty interrogatories

on each defendant, the court will not order defendants to respond to Nos. 26 through 40 of

plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories. Instead, plaintiff may serve a second set of interrogatories

in which he propounds up to fifteen additional interrogatories to each defendant. The

interrogatories in the second set may be those previously propounded as Nos. 26 through 40, or

they may be new interrogatories or a combination of both, not to exceed fifteen additional

interrogatories to each defendant.

PLAINTIFF’S MAY 25, 2005 MOTION TO COMPEL 

Plaintiff’s second motion to compel was served by mail on May 22, 2005. In

accordance with the court’s April 20, 2004 order, Local Rule 78-230(m), and the prisoner

mailbox rule, defendants were required to file and serve opposition or a statement of nonopposition to plaintiff’s motion within eighteen days, plus three days for mailing, after May 22,

2005. Defendants’ opposition was filed on June 28, 2005, more than thirty days after plaintiff’s

motion was filed. Defendants have not moved for leave to file their opposition out-of-time. On

July 6, 2005, plaintiff filed a timely motion to extend his time to file a reply to defendants’

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 4 of 20
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

5

untimely opposition. Plaintiff subsequently filed his reply on July 11, 2005. Good cause

appearing, plaintiff’s motion for extension of time will be granted nunc pro tunc, and the reply

filed July 11, 2005, will be deemed timely.

Plaintiff seeks to compel all defendants to serve further responses to Nos. 18, 23,

and 6 of plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories. He seeks to compel defendant Fish to serve

responses to interrogatories Nos. 4 through 12. In addition, plaintiff seeks to compel defendants

to serve further responses to Nos. 1 through 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 of plaintiff’s first request for

production of documents. Defendants contend that they served plaintiff with everything relevant

to his claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they

did not allow him to use the restroom while he was on the exercise yard.

I. Interrogatories

A. Responses by All Defendants to No. 18

Interrogatory No. 18 was propounded as follows: “When the yard resumed what

other officers were in your immediate proximity? Please state full names, rank and badge no.”

Defendants Tuter, Templeton, Fish, and Howard responded by stating what they

recall about the officers who were in their proximity. Defendant Harrison stated that he does not

recall who was in his immediate proximity. Defendants’ responses provide only the last name

and the title “Officer” or “Correctional Officer” for each officer identified.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is focused on defendants’ failure to provide him with

the full name of defendant Kelly, either in response to interrogatory No. 18 or in response to his

request for production of documents No. 1. In opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel,

defendants state that defendant Kelly’s full name is Justin Kelly. Defendants note that they

produced an incident report that includes defendant Kelly’s badge number and identification

number. The USM-285 form submitted by plaintiff for service on defendant Kelly includes the

defendant’s badge number and identification number. In the court’s order directing the United

States Marshal to serve process on defendant Kelly, the court will further identify the defendant

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 5 of 20
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

6

as Justin Kelly. On the basis of the further response included in defendants’ opposition, the court

will not order additional responses to interrogatory No. 18.

B. Responses by Defendant Fish to Nos. 4 through 12

In his motion to compel, plaintiff states that pages 4 and 5 were missing from

defendant Fish’s response to the first set of interrogatories. In their opposition to the motion,

defendants state that the responses were prepared and the omission of the pages containing them

was inadvertent. Defendants included a complete copy of defendant Fish’s response as an

attachment to their opposition. On the basis of the further response included in defendants’

opposition, the court will not order defendant Fish to make further responses to interrogatories 4

through 12.

C. Responses by All Defendants to No. 23

Interrogatory No. 23 was propounded as follows: “Are you aware of a policy or

procedure that forbids an inmate to enter or exit his cell during lockdown showers? (Attach it).” 

Each defendant objected to the interrogatory as vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of

“policy” or “procedure” and further objected to the extent that the question is a document

request. Without waiving the objections, each defendant answered, “yes.”

Plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to produce the document alluded to in their

responses. Defendants argue that they responded to plaintiff’s question and that interrogatories

are not document requests.

As drafted, plaintiff’s question requires only a yes or no answer, and each

defendant answered yes. An instruction to attach a document is not an interrogatory. 

Accordingly, the court will not compel defendants to serve further responses to No. 23.

In his second set of interrogatories, plaintiff may propound interrogatories to one

or more of the defendants asking what the policy or procedure was concerning an inmate’s ability

to enter or exit his cell during lockdown showers at High Desert State Prison on September 9,

2002, and where the policy or procedure can be found, if it was a written policy or procedure. 

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 6 of 20
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

7

Alternatively, plaintiff may include in his second request for production of documents a request

for all documents containing the policy or procedure in effect at High Desert State Prison on

September 9, 2002, concerning an inmate’s ability to enter or exit his cell during lockdown

showers.

D. Responses by All Defendants to No. 6

Interrogatory No. 6 was propounded as follows: “Please set forth any oaths,

mission statements or creeds you have taken in relation to your duties, whether by State, Federal,

or private agencies. Be specific, attach a copy if possible.” In response, each defendant made

several objections to the interrogatory but recalled being sworn in as a correctional peace officer

under the peace officer’s oath.

Plaintiff complains that none of the defendants set forth the oath and attached a

copy. In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendants assert that they responded to his question as

they understood it and that his request for a copy should be presented in a document request.

The phrase “set forth” is ambiguous. The term could mean “name,” “identify,” or

“describe” all oaths, mission statements, or creeds taken by the defendants. Each defendant

identified the oath taken by him or her as a correctional peace officer. An instruction to “attach a

document if possible” is not an interrogatory, and the court will not compel defendants to serve

further responses to No. 6. Plaintiff may serve a second request for production of documents in

which he requests a copy of the peace officer’s oath.

II. Request For Production of Documents

A. Request No. 1

In No. 1, plaintiff requested documentation verifying the full name, rank, and

badge number of each named defendant not dismissed by the court in this action. Defendants

objected that this request is vague and ambiguous as to time but referred to Exhibit A to their

response, stating that the exhibit includes “badge numbers, id numbers, length of service and

rank of the named Defendants.”

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 7 of 20
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

8

In his motion to compel, plaintiff characterizes defendants’ documentation as

evasive, piecemeal, and perjurious. He asserts that full names have not been provided for any

defendant and that defendants Tuter and Howard are not mentioned in the 70-page exhibit cited

by defendants. In opposition to the motion, defendants contend that the document provided was

responsive to plaintiff’s request but add that defendant J. Kelly is Justin Kelly.

Defendants’ Exhibit A is not responsive to plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff’s request

is not ambiguous. He seeks a document or, if necessary, documents that verify the full name,

rank, and badge number of each of the six named defendants who have not been dismissed. The

document provided by defendants does not contain (1) any of the requested information for

defendants Tuter and Howard, (2) the full name of any defendant, or (3) the rank of defendants

Fish, Templeton, and Kelly, as opposed to their posts. Defendants have not argued that the

requested information cannot be provided. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion will be granted as to

document request No. 1. Defendants will be required to produce documents that include the full

name of each defendant, the rank of defendants Fish, Templeton, and Kelly at the relevant times,

and all requested information for defendants Tuter and Howard.

B. Request No. 2

In No. 2, plaintiff requested

the building logs of each building (one thru four) on D lower yard

for the month of September 2002; Including but not limited to

inmates called to D yard medical, dental, program, classification,

counselor, mental health, chapel services, work and education.

Defendants objected to the request on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome,

irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and could include

private information about other inmates. Defendants produced redacted copies of D Facility logs

for all four buildings.

In his motion to compel, plaintiff describes the response as “selective, partial

disclosure.” He disputes the assertion of confidentiality as without merit and observes that

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 8 of 20
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

9

defendants did not seek a protective order. He argues that the logs he seeks “will demonstrate

inmate movement in and out of each building during lockdown showers” and “will show inmates

going to visits, counseling sessions, counselor visits, classification, work, canteen, religious

services, school, R&R, (receiving and release) and work releases.” Defendants argue that they

provided plaintiff with a redacted copy of the facility logs and that if he seeks additional

documents, he should clarify his request or propound additional discovery.

Plaintiff requested “building logs” showing inmate movements in and out of

buildings one through four on D lower yard during September 2002. In his motion, plaintiff

clarifies that he is seeking logs that will show inmate movement in and out of each building

during lockdown showers. Plaintiff believes the evidence will show that movement was

permitted during lockdown for showers.

The logs provided by defendants appear to be building logs. Although these logs

do not show the movement of individual inmates in and out of the buildings, plaintiff has not

established that there are building logs in which correctional staff record the movement of

individual inmates in and out of the buildings. For this reason, the court will not order

defendants to serve a further response to No. 2. Plaintiff may request additional logs in a new

request for production of documents in which he identifies the logs by name or form number, or

clarifies that he seeks records showing the movement of individual inmates in and out of the four

buildings on D lower yard during shower lockdowns in September 2002. For plaintiff’s purpose,

which is to obtain evidence that inmates regularly enter and exit building during lockdown

showers, inmate names are irrelevant and can be redacted from any building logs that record the

movements of individual inmates in and out of the buildings.

C. Request No. 3

In No. 3, plaintiff requested “copies of the lockdown shower program for each

building (one thru four), including but not limited to times and amount of showers.” Defendants

objected to the request as overly broad, burdensome, and irrelevant, as vague and ambiguous in

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 9 of 20
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

10

terms of time as well as in terms of the meaning of “lockdown shower program,” as calling for

information not relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and as calling

for confidential information that could jeopardize the safety and security of the institution. 

Defendants provided no documents in response to Request No. 3.

In his motion to compel, plaintiff describes No. 3 as an extension of No. 2 and

claims the documents can easily be sanitized. He argues that the asserted safety and security

concerns are without merit because all inmates know the lockdown procedure. In opposition,

defendants cite the redacted facility logs provided in response to Request No. 2 and assert that

these logs include the times of lock-down showers on the dates preceding and subsequent to the

incident that is the subject matter of this action. Defendants suggest that, if plaintiff seeks

additional documents, he should propound additional discovery. The court will not order

defendants to serve a further response to No. 3 as propounded. Plaintiff may propound a new

request in which he defines the term “lockdown shower program” or explains what information

he seeks in addition to the building logs containing the times of lockdown showers.

D. Request No. 4

In No. 4, plaintiff requested a copy of the lockdown memo in effect on September

9, 2002. Defendants objected on various grounds and provided no documents. In his motion to

compel, plaintiff objects to the assertion that the memo calls for confidential information, noting

that he has copies of 138 lockdown memos in his cell but does not have a copy of the one in

effect on September 9, 2002. In opposition to the motion, defendants reiterate their objections

but provide redacted copies of two lockdown memos that would have been in effect for Facility

D on September 9, 2002. As defendants have provided documents responsive to No. 4, the court

will not order defendants to serve a further response to this request.

E. Request No. 5

In No. 5, plaintiff requested “documentation stating the time, duration, location

and cause of the emergency response alarm on September 09, 2002 during morning yard. The

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 10 of 20
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

11

nature of the alarm is also requested.” In response, defendants referred plaintiff to the Crime

Incident Report provided as Exhibit A to their responses.

In his motion to compel, plaintiff argues that the incident disclosed in the Crime

Incident Report was not the incident that caused the yard to go down. He contends that the

incident occurred on another yard at approximately 10:40 a.m. In opposition, defendants argue

that the incident report they provided concerns an incident that occurred at approximately 11:10

a.m. and that the 11:10 incident was the one that caused the yard to go down. Defendants

contend that they should not be required to guess what additional documents plaintiff seeks.

Plaintiff’s request does not specify that he is seeking information about an alarm

on a different yard. Defendants will not be required to serve a further response to the request as

propounded. Plaintiff may propound a new request in which he requests the incident report for

an incident that occurred at approximately 10:40 a.m. on September 9, 2002, on another yard.

F. Requests Nos. 6, 7, 10, and 12

In Nos. 6, 7, 10, and 12, plaintiff requested documentation of “acts of

insubordination or inmate abuse allegations throughout the course of each defendant’s

employment” (No. 6); documentation of all disciplinary actions that resulted from acts described

in response to No. 6 (No. 7); documentation obtained or generated as a result of the incident at

issue in this case (No. 10); and inmate appeals alleging misconduct or impropriety by defendants

in the course of their employment (No. 12.)

Defendants objected to these requests as over broad, burdensome, privileged, and

seeking documentation not relevant to the case or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Defendants cited state and federal statutes and the United States Constitution that

prohibit disclosure of personnel records, protect privacy rights, and exempt certain information

from disclosure. In response to No. 10, defendants produced the inmate appeal submitted by

plaintiff and the first level response to it. No other documents were produced in response to

these four requests.

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 11 of 20
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

12

In his motion to compel, plaintiff argues that the documents sought by No. 6 are

“absolutely necessary to establish 404(b) evidence, character and habit or reputation” and that the

documents are relevant and admissible given his prima facie showing of defendants’ malicious,

wanton, and sadistic intent. Plaintiff asserts that, as peace officers, defendants are subject to

“‘Prichess’ [sic] review for past incidents of misconduct.” Plaintiff describes No. 7 as an

extension of No. 6 and “equally relevant and admissible.” He argues that his own past will be

presented to the jury to discredit him and that he should be allowed to do the same to the

defendants. Regarding No. 10, plaintiff claims he is seeking information about himself, not other

inmates, and that there is no confidentiality involved. He questions whether defendants are

asserting that plaintiff’s own inmate appeal was the only documentation generated as a result of

the incident at issue. Plaintiff states that No. 12 is related to Nos. 6 and 7 and is relevant on the

same grounds.

In opposition, defendants observe that plaintiff has not addressed defendants’

objections or their supporting authority but merely asserts that the information he seeks is

relevant and does not concern other inmates. Defendants argue that past complaints against the

defendants will not provide answers to the issues in this case, which are (1) whether plaintiff

suffered a sufficiently serious injury when he was not allowed to use the restroom while on the

exercise yard and (2) whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to plaintiff’s

health and safety. Defendants argue that plaintiff’s reliance on Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules

of Evidence is misplaced because that rule generally prohibits the use of other wrongful acts

against a defendant merely to show that the defendant has a propensity to commit the act in

question. Thus, defendants conclude, any evidence of prior misconduct would not be admissible

and would not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants reiterate their objection

to plaintiff’s requests as overly broad and burdensome, asserting that locating every inmate

appeal that includes any allegation or complaint against the defendants would require defendants

to search thousands of documents, and the burden of doing so outweighs plaintiff’s need for the

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 12 of 20
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

13

documents sought. Defendants cite the qualified privilege applicable to official information and

contend that the unlimited search of records requested by plaintiff goes far beyond any potential

benefits of disclosure.

The court sustains defendants’ objections to Requests Nos. 6, 7, and 12 as overly

broad and burdensome. Plaintiff places no limits as to time or subject matter on the requested

documentation of acts of insubordination and inmate abuse allegations, the disciplinary actions

resulting from such acts and allegations, and any inmate appeals alleging misconduct or

impropriety by the defendants during their employment by the CDC. Mere allegations of abuse,

misconduct, or impropriety have no probative value at all, and plaintiff has not demonstrated the

relevance of disciplinary actions resulting from acts of insubordination, misconduct, or

impropriety unrelated to prison conditions. The court will not require defendants to serve further

responses to Nos. 6, 7, and 12 as propounded. Plaintiff may propound a new request or requests

limited to a reasonable and appropriate period of time and further limited by subject matter to

disciplinary actions related to the misconduct alleged in this action. Any new request must also

be limited to documentation that can be located without searching the central files of prisoners. 

Defendants may renew their objections as to privilege, privacy, and confidentiality, if

appropriate.

G. Request No. 8

In No. 8, plaintiff requested “documentation stating what each defendants

employment insurance bond is, rounded to the nearest dollar.” Defendants objected to the

request as vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of “employment insurance bond” but

answered that no such documents exist because the California Department of Corrections is selfinsured.

In his motion to compel, plaintiff argues that every employee must be bonded and

he wants to know the amount of said bonds for the defendants. In opposition to the motion,

defendants argue that plaintiff merely disagrees with their answer and fails to assert any authority

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 13 of 20
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

14

for his contention that every employee must be bonded. Defendants reiterate that they are

employees of the California Department of Corrections, the department is self-insured, and they

cannot produce documents that do not exist. Plaintiff’s mere unsupported disagreement with

defendants’ response provides no basis for ordering further responses to No. 8. The court will

not require defendants to serve further responses to this request. 

H. Requests Nos. 9 and 16

In Nos. 9 and 16, plaintiff requested “any and all reports, memos, policy and

procedures regarding lockdown showers in California Department of Corrections statewide and

specifically High Desert State Prison” and “any and all documentation, memos, policy or

procedures in effect on September 9, 2002 that prohibits inmate traffic in the buildings during

lockdown showers.”

Defendants objected to No. 9 as vague and ambiguous regarding the meaning of

“reports, memos, policy and procedures,” as overly broad and burdensome, as seeking documents

from other facilities that would not be available to the defendants in this case, as calling for

information not relevant or likely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, and as calling for

confidential information that would jeopardize the safety and security of the institution. 

Defendants referred plaintiff to a section of the Department of Operations Manual titled

“Lockdown Movement,” provided to plaintiff as Exhibit C to defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s

First Request for Production of Documents.

Defendants objected to No. 16 as overly broad and burdensome, as calling for

information not likely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, and as calling for confidential

information that would jeopardize the safety and security of the institution, but referred plaintiff

to Exhibit C.

In his motion to compel, plaintiff contends that the single document produced by

defendants does not address the subject of lockdown showers and does not even contain the word

“showers.” He argues that all defendants admitted the existence of a policy regarding lockdown

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 14 of 20
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

1

 Both memos authorized controlled showers for Southern Hispanic inmates, with those

inmates to be escorted in handcuffs to the showers three times per week.

15

showers and committed perjury when they did so if there is no such policy. In opposition to the

motion, defendants argue that their objections to these requests were proper.

The court is unable to find Exhibit C among the attachments to defendants’

opposition, but plaintiff attached a copy to his motion. The section of the operations manual

titled “Lockdown Movement” provides that “[a]ll movement of inmates during a lockdown shall

be coordinated by the Watch Commander” and “shall be restricted to those inmates cleared to

perform essential or emergency services.” The manual further provides that inmate movement

“shall be under direct staff supervision and/or escort.” These general provisions are followed by

specific provisions regarding feeding, medical appointments or care, and daily procedures. 

Under the heading “Daily Procedures, the manual provides that “daily institution/facility

procedures governing movement of staff and inmates during lockdown conditions shall be

published and distributed to all affected areas.” This language suggests that the movement of

inmates for such routine activities as showers is governed during lockdown conditions by

documents issued by the institution or facility during the lockdown. Such a conclusion is

supported by the fact that both of the lockdown memos produced by defendants in further

response to Request No. 4 include a provision regarding showers for inmates affected by the

lockdown.1

Plaintiff seeks written policies regarding lockdown showers. He seeks those

policies that have statewide application and those that apply specifically to High Desert State

Prison. The documents produced by defendants demonstrate that there is a statewide policy that

governs lockdown movement generally and invests each institution with the discretion to

determine and announce specific procedures for daily activities, including showers, on a case-bycase basis when a lockdown is ordered. Plaintiff has received copies of the statewide policy and

the specific lockdown orders that were in effect on September 9, 2002. Although plaintiff

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 15 of 20
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

16

objects that the single documents provided in response to Requests Nos. 9 and 16 is woefully

inadequate, the court finds that defendants’ Exhibit C and the two lockdown memos provided in

further response to Request No. 4 are responsive and are not inconsistent with defendants’

responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories regarding lockdown shower policy. The court will not

order further responses to Requests Nos. 9 and 16. Plaintiff may, of course, include follow-up

questions concerning lockdown shower policy in his second set of interrogatories.

I. Request No. 13

In No. 13, plaintiff requested “copies of maintenance logs or work orders

concerning the D yard (one through four) toilet from January 2002 thru January 2005.” 

Defendants asserted various objections but produced copies of all work orders initiated in 2003

and 2004 for all toilets in Facility D. Defendants stated that they were unable to locate work

orders for 2002.

In his motion to compel, plaintiff disputes defendants’ objections and describes

defendants’ response as incredible because they complain that the request is too broad yet fail to

disclose the documents for “the target date.” In opposition to the motion, defendants produce

additional documents, stating that these documents were not stored electronically and were

therefore overlooked. A cover page for the additional documents indicates that the attachments

are copies of daily work orders completed in 2002 for toilet problems in Facilities D-1 through

D-4, as well as weekly work orders dated from August through October 15, 2002. Plaintiff’s

motion is moot as to Request No. 13, and defendants will not be ordered to serve further

responses.

J. Request No. 17

In No. 17, plaintiff requested “building logs, inmate kitchen workers employment

time logs, and work schedules demonstrate [sic] what time workers, go to and come back from,

work in the dining halls of the D yard (buildings one through four), For September 09, 2002.” 

Defendants objected to the request as over broad, burdensome, irrelevant, and not likely to lead

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 16 of 20
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

2

 Although plaintiff indicates 10:00 to 10:30 p.m., it appears from the building logs that

showers were taken in the morning rather than the evening. 

17

to the discovery of admissible evidence, but referred plaintiff to the redacted building logs

produced in response to Request No. 2.

In his motion to compel, plaintiff states that his request is necessary to document 

inmate movement during lockdown showers in each building. Plaintiff asserts that kitchen

workers “return from work at approximately 10: – 10:30 pm2 daily . . . exactly in the middle of

these defendants’ lockdown showers on the date in question.” Although plaintiff makes no

mention of employment time logs and work schedules, it appears that he seeks an order

compelling defendants to produce such documents for all inmates employed in the dining halls

on September 9, 2002. In opposition to the motion, defendants assert that the employment

records of other inmates are confidential and those inmates have a right of privacy. Defendants

imply that the redacted building logs are responsive to plaintiff’s request.

The court has reviewed the building logs produced by defendants and finds that

the logs do not reflect the time at which dining hall workers went to and returned from work on

September 9, 2002. At the same time, it is evident from the assertions in plaintiff’s motion to

compel that he is not seeking to discover any information not already known to him. Plaintiff

may obtain the documentary evidence he seeks by propounding an interrogatory asking one or

more defendants what time inmate workers went to and returned from the dining halls of D yard

on September 9, 2002 , or by serving a request for admissions in which he asks one or more

defendants to admit that inmate workers returned from the dining halls on the date in question at

a particular time or within a particular range of time. Defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s

request for individual inmates’ time logs and work schedules as over broad and burdensome are

sustained. The court will not compel defendants to produce individual inmate employment time

logs and work schedules.

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 17 of 20
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

18

III. Summary

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s second motion to compel will be denied

except as to Request No. 1 of plaintiff’s first request for production of documents.

PLAINTIFF’S SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 REQUEST FOR DEPOSITIONS

Plaintiff seeks leave to depose three of the defendants at government expense. 

Citing his indigency and in forma pauperis status, plaintiff asserts that he is unable to afford the

cost of depositions. He contends that he must be allowed to depose defendants Harrison, Fish,

and Kelly because of the facts and complexities of the case and because of defendants’

evasiveness in discovery. Plaintiff believes he can complete the three depositions in less than six

hours total. Plaintiff requests a certified court reporter, an officer of the court to administer

oaths, a cassette tape recorder, and six hours of recording tape, all at government expense, and

further requests that the government pay for preparation of the original transcripts and copies for

plaintiff’s use. Plaintiff proposes that the costs be “taxed against the final judgment.”

In timely opposition, defendants argue that plaintiff’s request is improper and that

deposition costs are not authorized by statute as a fee or expenditure. Defendants note that the

federal in forma pauperis statute, which permits the court to waive preliminary court fees for

indigent defendants, has not been interpreted as permitting a court to authorize depositions at

government expense or to exempt a plaintiff from paying witness fees. Defendants assert that

plaintiff has numerous alternative methods of proceeding with this case.

In reply, plaintiff objects to defendants’ opposition on the ground that his request

is ex parte in nature and that defendants were served “simply for notice sake.” Plaintiff argues

that his request places no burden, obligation, or responsibility on any defendant and asserts that

defendants’ counsel does not represent the interests of the government. Plaintiff contends that he

is not requesting waiver of any fee, does not seek exemption from witness fees, has not raised

access-to-court issues, and would not be requesting two of the three depositions if the defendants

had been more cooperative in the discovery process. Plaintiff accuses defendants of obstructing

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 18 of 20
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

19

justice and evading disclosure. He asserts that the purpose of the proposed depositions “is to

provide on record what defendants now withhold.” He claims that taking the depositions “will

most likely avoid the need for a trial” and suggests that the court “defer” the cost of the

depositions “against final judgement.”

Plaintiff’s request for depositions, like his request for leave to serve written

interrogatories on a non-party, is a discovery motion and must be briefed. Plaintiff is advised

that the expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant in federal court is proper

only when authorized by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The federal in

forma pauperis statute, under which plaintiff was permitted to file this case without prepaying the

filing fee, does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for deposition costs. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there is any authority for the order he seeks. Nor has

he shown that deposing three defendants is either necessary or likely to avoid the necessity for

trial. Plaintiff’s request will be denied.

PLAINTIFF’S OCTOBER 27, 2005 REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Plaintiff has requested that the court extend the time for discovery. No deadline

has been set for completion of discovery. Plaintiff’s request is unnecessary and will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s April 7, 2005 request for court order to serve and receive answers to

written interrogatories is denied;

2. Defendants’ April 27, 2005 request for an extension of time to May 11, 2005,

to serve responses to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and first request for production of

documents is granted nunc pro tunc;

3. Plaintiff’s April 27, 2005 request for a thirty-day extension of time to file a

motion to compel or submit the documents required for service of defendant Kelly is granted,

and plaintiff’s notice of submission of documents filed May 25, 2005, is deemed timely;

4. Plaintiff’s May 4, 2005 motion to compel discovery is denied;

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 19 of 20
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

20

5. Plaintiff’s May 4, 2005 request for leave to propound interrogatories in excess

of twenty-five is granted, and plaintiff may serve a second set of interrogatories in which he

propounds up to fifteen additional interrogatories to each defendant;

6. Plaintiff’s May 25, 2005 second motion to compel discovery is granted solely

as to Request No. 1 of plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents; within thirty days

from the date of this order, defendants shall serve upon plaintiff a document or documents that

verify the full name, present rank, and badge number of each named defendant not dismissed

from this case;

7. Plaintiff’s July 6, 2005 motion to extend his time to file a reply to defendants’

opposition to plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery is granted, and the reply filed July 11,

2005, is deemed timely;

8. Plaintiff’s September 16, 2005 request for depositions at government expense

is denied; and

9. Plaintiff’s October 27, 2005 request to extend time for discovery is denied.

DATED: December 13, 2005.

DAD:13

spen2442.disc

Case 2:03-cv-02442-LKK -DAD Document 56 Filed 12/14/05 Page 20 of 20