Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06529/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06529-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF HARNDEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEY, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 6529 REC LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 83.) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND

DISCOVERY DEADLINE (Doc. 85.) 

 Jeff Harnden (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 7, 2006, this Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order setting forth a

discovery deadline of November 8, 2006. On March 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled

“Objections to Discover and Motion to Compel.” (Doc. 83.) This pleading consists of eighty

(80) pages wherein he complains that Defendants have not responded to or produced certain

documents via discovery. 

On April 18, 2006, Defendants filed an Opposition to the Motion to Compel. 

On May 5, 2006, Plaintiff moved to extend the discovery deadline. 

A. MOTION TO COMPEL

The Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order issued March 7, 2006, stated specifically

that all discovery was to comply with all pertinent rules including Rules 5, 7, 11, 26, and 37 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 11-110, 7-130, 7-131, 7-132, 5-134, 5-135, 6-

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 86 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

136, 43-140 and 78-230(m) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States Court. 

Rule 37(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a motion to

compel contain certification that the moving party has, in good faith, conferred or attempted to

confer with the party not making the disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court

intervention. The Motion before the court, however, contains no certification that plaintiff has

complied with the meet and confer requirement imposed by the rules. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel is DENIED on this basis. 

Even were the Court to overlook the Rule 37 certification requirement, the Court has

examined the Motion to Compel, the Opposition, the Requests for Production of Documents and

Defendant’s responses thereto and concludes that the Motion to Compel should be denied. 

Plaintiff clearly misunderstands the purpose of a request for production of documents

because instead of requesting documents, he requests an amount of money for purposes of

settlement. Defendants objections to Requests Numbers 1 and 2 are therefore, appropriate. 

In Request Numbers 3, 4, and 5, Plaintiff is seeking medical and inmate appeal records.

However, the Defendants in this action are correctional officers and assert that they do not have

possession, custody, or control over these documents. Moreover, Plaintiff may request and

obtain review of the documents himself and thus, Defendant’s responses are proper. 

Request number 6 asks for a complete copy of the Department of Corrections Operations

Manual (DOM). Defendants object on the grounds that production of the complete DOM is over

broad and burdensome. Defendants further point out that a copy of the manual is available for

review in the prison law library, which also contains updates. Given Plaintiff’s ability to access

the DOM, the response is not improper. 

Requests Number 7 states “Discovery of chemical agents. Use of force. 

Decontamination requirements.” Defendants have objected on the grounds that the request is

vague, unintelligible and ambiguous. Without waiving objection, however, Defendants produced

a copy of Corcoran Operational Procedure Number 1053. Plaintiff continues to object that the

response is insufficient, however, the Court is inclined to agree with the Defendants in that the

request is vague. Should Plaintiff seek a more sufficient or clear response, he should take care to

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 86 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

make his response more clear. 

In Request Number 8, Plaintiff requests permission to watch a video of the incident. 

Defendants have made arrangements for this, however, Plaintiff complains that Inmate Dustin is

not being allowed to watch with him and thus, the response is insufficient. As noted by

Defendants, Inmate Dustin is not a party to this action. Thus, Defendant’s response to this

request is proper. 

In Request Numbers 9 and 10, Plaintiff states “use of force Complaints; In the Past,

against Key, Kenner and Vogel. Defendants object on the grounds that the request is over broad

in that it covers any complaint made at any time. The Court is inclined to agree. 

In Request Number 11, Plaintiff requested a “clean copy” of an inmate appeal which was

provided by Defendants. Plaintiff now complains that the copy provided is false and censored. 

Plaintiff’s challenges to the authenticity of a document is not proper in a Motion to Compel

production of the document. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Request Number 11 is denied. 

In Request Numbers 12 and 13, Plaintiff requests that the Defendants provide him with

glasses and that “Note, Because You may not wish to Meet and be Reasonable I provide

Deposition of Dustin. Good luck reading, Baxter Declaration. Vivian Hesiford Asthma.” 

Plaintiff’s request for glasses, however, is not for the production of documents and is improper. 

Moreover, the statement provide in Request Number 13, is vague and ambiguous and

Defendant’s response is proper. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion with regard to Numbers 12, and

13 is denied. 

Finally, Plaintiff’s complaints that he was not permitted to review his file properly in

1004, predates this action and is also not proper discovery request. Accordingly, based on the

foregoing, the Motion to Compel is DENIED. 

B. MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE

Plaintiff has also moved to extend the discovery deadline because he cannot get pens and

the Attorney General has refused to provide him with a “Tape with lap counter or headphone.” 

In addition, Plaintiff states that he lacks privacy to take notes. Such grounds do not present good

cause to extend the discovery deadline, however. In addition, according to the Court’s Discovery

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 86 Filed 05/17/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

and Scheduling Order, the deadline does not expire until November 8, 2006, thus, any request is

premature. Finally, Plaintiff should note that the mere filing of a civil action does not give

Plaintiff leave to request and obtain anything he can think of. Discovery is provided solely for

the purpose of obtaining information relevant to the relevant to case at hand, not for the purpose

of obtaining pens, tapes, privacy or eyeglasses. Accordingly, the request is DENIED. 

C. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Compel is DENIED; 

2. The Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 86 Filed 05/17/06 Page 4 of 4