Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00376/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00376-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN JUSTIN BROWNLEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. BURNES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00376-JLT-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

(Doc. No. 49)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

(Doc. No. 50)

Pending before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff Benjamin Justin Brownlee. 

The first is a Motion to Compel Discovery filed on October 28, 2024. (Doc. No. 49). Defendants 

timely filed an Opposition on November 25, 2024. (Doc. No. 54). Also pending is Plaintiff’s 

“Motion To Refer to Pro Se Settlement Program,” filed October 30, 2024. (Doc. No. 50). 

Defendants timely filed an Opposition on November 20, 2024. (Doc. No. 53). The Plaintiff is a 

state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his First Amended Complaint, as 

screened, against Defendants J. Burnes, M. Rivera, P. Rodriguez, and J.J. Flores. (Doc. Nos. 18, 

21). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court denies both of Plaintiff’s motions.

MOTION TO COMPEL

In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling disclosure of “any and all 

grievances, complaints or other documents received by prison staff” pertaining to inmate abuse 

Case 1:23-cv-00376-JLT-HBK Document 55 Filed 12/03/24 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

by Defendants J. Burnes, J.J. Flores, M. Rivera and P. Rodriguez. (Doc. No. 49 at 6, 9). Plaintiff 

asserts that Defendants’ objections to producing the records based on privilege, overbreadth, and 

confidentiality “have no merit” and are “frivolous.” (Id. at 2, 6). Plaintiff further contends that 

Defendants waived any objections to producing the documents when they failed to respond to 

Plaintiff’s discovery requests within 45 days. (Id. at 3).

In response to the Motion, Defendants first note that Plaintiff did not fulfil his duty to 

meet and confer before filing a motion to compel and thus his motion is facially deficient. (Doc. 

No. 54 at 2). Further, they dispute Plaintiff’s claim that their discovery responses were untimely. 

(Id. at 3-4). They point to the record in this case, which shows that they timely requested and 

were granted an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Id. at 3) (citing 

Doc. Nos. 46, 47). Thus, Defendants argue they have not waived their objections to Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests. Finally, Defendants contend that they have satisfied their discovery 

obligations because some of Plaintiff’s requests are irrelevant to any claim or defense in this 

matter and their objections were proper. (Doc. No. 54 at 4-6).

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides:

parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter 

that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to 

the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at 

stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative 

access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the 

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues and whether the 

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Although broad, “the scope of discovery is not without limits.” 

Compass Bank v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1040, 1051 (S.D. Cal. 

2015). The Court “must limit” irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome, cumulative or 

disproportional discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Whether to permit or deny discovery is 

left to the Court’s “broad” discretion. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

A party may request documents “in the responding party’s possession, custody, or 

control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). The responding party must respond in writing and is obliged 

Case 1:23-cv-00376-JLT-HBK Document 55 Filed 12/03/24 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

to produce all specified relevant and non-privileged documents, tangible things, or electronically 

stored information in its “possession, custody, or control” on the date specified. Id. If a party 

“fails to respond” as requested under Rule 34, the propounding party may file a motion to compel 

production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). An “incomplete disclosure, answer, or 

response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). 

“The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating ‘actual and substantial prejudice’ from the 

denial of discovery.” Hasan v. Johnson, 2012 WL 569370 *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012) (citing 

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

B. Analysis

As an initial matter, Plaintiff's Motion is facially deficient. Under the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and local rules of this Court, a party must confer or attempt to confer with the 

opposing party to resolve a discovery dispute before filing a motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(1); see Local Rule 251(b); see also Doc. No. 38 at 2 (apprising the parties of the meet and 

confer requirement). Plaintiff admits in his Motion that he did not attempt to comply with the 

meet and confer mandate, because he thought such efforts would be futile. (Doc. No. 49 at 2). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is facially deficient, and the Court may deny it on that basis 

alone.

As to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants’ response was untimely, this is refuted by the 

record before the Court. Defendants timely sought and were granted an extension of time to 

submit their discovery responses, and ultimately mailed their responses by the extended deadline. 

Thus, the Court finds unavailing Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendants have waived their objections 

by submitting untimely discovery response.

Finally, the Court finds Plaintiff's motion to compel is due to be denied on the merits. 

Plaintiff Request for Production No. 1 requested:

Any and all grievances, complaints or other documents received by 

prison staff that stated the Defendants J. Burnes; J. J. Flores; M. 

Rivera; and P. Rodriguez or their agents at CSP-Corcoran 

concerning the mistreatment of prisoner by Defendants J. Burnes; 

J.J. Flores; M. Rivera; and P. Rodriguez; and any memoranda; 

investigative Files, or/and other documents created in response to 

such complaints.

Case 1:23-cv-00376-JLT-HBK Document 55 Filed 12/03/24 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

(Doc. No. 49 at 18).

Defendants responded as follows:

Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous as to 

the phrases “agents” and “concerning the mistreatment of prisoner, 

and is overbroad as to time and scope. To the extent that this 

request is asking for documents relevant to non-party allegations 

against Defendants, this request is seeking the production of 

documents that are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 

is unduly burdensome, expensive, and intrusive because 

Defendants’ liability in this action does not depend on any other 

incidents or events, particularly those involving individuals who are 

not parties to this lawsuit. This request seeks documents protected 

by the official information privilege for the safety and security of 

the institution, staff, and inmates. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 

F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Decl. of P. Williams. 

This request also seeks documents subject to the privacy rights of 

Defendants and of individuals who are not parties to this lawsuit. 

Defendants object to the extent information sought is “confidential” 

within the meaning of California Code of Regulations, Title 15, 

section 3321, and therefore an incarcerated person such as Plaintiff 

is prohibited from possession of the requested information under 

the provisions of California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 

3450(d). This request also seeks documents relating to other 

incarcerated individuals for which disclosure is prohibited by 

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3370 and CDCR 

Department Operations Manual, Chapter 7. This request also seeks 

personnel records protected from disclosure by California 

Government Code section 6254 and California Code of 

Regulations, Title 15, section 3450(d). Additionally, to the extent 

the request seeks the production of “complaints” submitted against 

Defendants, such information is beyond the scope of discovery in 

this case because it is not related to Plaintiff’s claims. Propensity 

evidence is generally not admissible in civil rights cases. See Gates 

v. Rivera, 993 F.2d 697, 700 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Fed. R. Evid. 

404(b) (“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible 

to prove the character of a person in order to show action in 

conformity therewith.”) Moreover, collateral matters that are not 

related to the type of incident in the case are non-discoverable. See 

Gonzales v. City of Bakersfield, No. 1:16-cv-00107 JLT, 2016 WL 

4474600, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016) (finding that a plaintiff 

suffering from use of non-deadly force was not entitled to discovery 

of all deadly force incidents); Cathey v. City of Vallejo, No. 2:14-

cv-01749 JAM (AC), 2016 WL 792783, at *1, 5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 

2016) (in action alleging non-deadly excessive force used during 

arrest, discovery was limited to complaints of non-lethal excessive 

force involving conduct alleged to have occurred while an arrestee 

was in police custody); Harbridge v. Yates, No. 1:10-cv-00473 

DAD-JLT (PC), 2015 WL 8213561, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2015) 

(request for discovery on demotion due to alleged sexual 

harassment has no relation to excessive force action.) Additionally, 

evidence of complaints filed by other inmates is irrelevant to 

establishing Defendants’ liability. See Reynoso v. Sayre, No. 11-

cv-4525 CW (PR), 2013 WL 4840496, at *21-22 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 

Case 1:23-cv-00376-JLT-HBK Document 55 Filed 12/03/24 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

11, 2013.)

Without waiving any objection, Defendants respond as follows:

Defendants will provide a privilege log and declaration in support 

of any relevant privileged or confidential documents that are 

located and not produced to Plaintiff. Defendants produce the 

Inmate Appeals Tracking System (IATS) logs for each Defendant, 

which show staff complaints that were filed against Defendants at 

Bates No. DEF 001 – DEF 014. Inmate CDCR numbers have been 

redacted. Defendants produce a copy of Grievance Log No. 

2005707/Appeal Log No. CSPC-8-18-04312 with institutional 

responses at Bates No. DEF 015 – DEF 030.

(Id. at 4-5).

First, the Court does not find the requested records relevant to this case. Plaintiff’s 

request is not limit based on time frame, the nature of the allegations in the grievance, or the 

outcome of the grievance. Plaintiff contends that prior instances of abuse or misconduct by the 

defendants can be admissible to show “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, 

identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” (Doc. No. 49 at 8). However, the mere fact that 

Defendants have been accused of some form of misconduct by inmates at some point in the past 

is not probative of any issues in this case. Plaintiff also asserts that the requested documents may 

be relevant to establish his claims for supervisory liability against Defendants, (id. at 7-8), 

however there are no surviving supervisory claims in Plaintiff’s operative complaint, thus this is 

not a valid basis for compelling the discovery. (See Doc. Nos. 21, 23). 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s request for “any and all” prior grievances or complaints against 

the four Defendants is overbroad, overly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this 

case. See Blue v. Grannis, 2007 WL 2758025 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2007) (denying motion to 

compel production of all grievances and lawsuits filed against defendant); Edwards v. Carey, 

2006 WL 3437901, *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2006) (denying motion to compel production of all 

civil complaints and administrative grievances filed against defendants on any matter involving 

family visits); see also Moore v. Duran, 2024 WL 1973501, at *5 (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2024) 

(finding request for prior grievances not proportional to needs of the case because the substantial 

“expenditure of time and resources” involved in producing the requested documents was not 

justified by their “marginal relevance” to the case at hand). The significant burden on CDCR 

Case 1:23-cv-00376-JLT-HBK Document 55 Filed 12/03/24 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

officials imposed by locating, reviewing, and documenting such records is not justified by the 

limited relevance of these documents. Because the Court finds Defendants’ response to Request 

for Production No. 1 was sufficient and that Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing actual 

prejudice from the denial of those records, the Court need not address the additional bases cited 

by Defendants for its response. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is denied.

MOTION TO REFER TO PRO SE SETTLEMENT

In his second motion, Plaintiff “moves the court to find good cause to refer this matter to . 

. . the pro se settlement program.” (Doc. No. 50 at 1). Plaintiff contends that Defendants have 

been withholding discovery and not responding to his communications, and would like a judge to 

“make the defendants and Petitioner come to some type of equal agreement to a settlement.” 

(Id.). Defendants filed an Opposition noting that they opted out of the early Alternative Dispute 

Resolution program on June 18, 2024, and indicate they still do not believe that participating in 

an early settlement conference would be productive. (Doc. No. 53 at 1).

Because settlement conferences are voluntary and can only be fruitful when both sides are 

open to settlement discussions, the Court does not find that referring this case to settlement 

conference is appropriate at this time.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. No. 49) is DENIED. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. No. 50) is DENIED.

Dated: December 2, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00376-JLT-HBK Document 55 Filed 12/03/24 Page 6 of 6