Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00342/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00342-26/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

ELROY W. BROWNING,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-LJO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM

TO WARDEN SCRIBNER AND JEANNE

WOODFORD

(Docs. 73 and 80)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL

RESPONSES TO POD REQUESTS 3 AND 7,

AND DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

RESPONSE TO POD REQUEST 4

(Doc. 73)

DEFENDANTS HAVE THIRTY DAYS TO

SERVE THEIR RESPONSES ON PLAINTIFF 

I. Order

Plaintiff Elroy W. Browning (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s complaint filed March 11, 2005, against defendants Castro, Jackson, and Lopez for use

of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

A. Motions for Issuance of Subpoenas Duces Tecum

On August 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel non-party Warden Scribner to respond

to his request for the production of documents, and on September 18, 2006, plaintiff filed a

document entitled “Subpoena Duces Tecum,” in which he was attempting to obtain from Warden

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 85 Filed 01/26/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Scriber the production of operational procedures and grievances and complaints submitted by other

inmates. (Docs. 60, 64.) Plaintiff’s motions were denied by the court in two separate orders issued

on October 23, 2006. (Docs. 70, 71.) Plaintiff was notified that if he wished to obtain a subpoena

duces tecum directing Scribner to produce documents, he was required to submit a declaration

justifying his request, and that if he wished to obtain grievances and complaints filed by other

inmates, he was required to submit a brief explaining how the evidence is relevant to his claims.

(Id.)

On November 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the issuance of a subpoena duces

tecum directing Warden Scribner to produce documents and on November 22, 2006, plaintiff filed

a motion seeking the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum directing former California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation Director Jeanne Woodford to produce documents. (Docs. 73, 80.)

Plaintiff did not support either motion with a declaration justifying the need for the

documents. Further, the court takes judicial notice of the fact that Woodford retired from CDCR and

as such, a subpoena directing her to produce CDCR documents would likely be futile. Because

plaintiff failed to support his motions in compliance with the court’s order of October 23, 2006, the

motions shall be denied.

B. Motion to Compel Responses to POD Requests 3, 4, and 7

On September 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a second document entitled “Subpoena Duces Tecum,”

in which plaintiff was apparently seeking to compel defendants to respond to plaintiff’s request for

the production of documents. (Doc. 65.) On October 23, 2006, the court denied plaintiff’s motion

because it was not supported by a copy of the discovery requests and responses at issue, and it was

not supported with any argument concerning why the documents or information requested was

relevant and why defendants’ objection were not justified. (Doc. 71.) The court granted plaintiff

thirty days within which to file another motion to compel responses to requests one, three, four, and

seven. (Id.) On November 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a response to the order addressing requests three,

four, and seven, and supported the response with copies of his discovery requests and defendants’

responses. (Doc. 73, 6:1-7:20 & Exhibit B.)

///

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 85 Filed 01/26/07 Page 2 of 5
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

With respect to request number three, directed to all three defendants via two separate

document production requests, plaintiff states that he seeks a copy of inmate Stephens’

grievances/complaints relating to the incident during which plaintiff and Stephens were pepper

sprayed on April 9, 2004, and then decontaminated with hot water. (Doc. 73, 7:1-13.) Defendants

objected on the grounds of confidentiality and lack of personal knowledge, possession, custody, or

control. (Id., Exhibit B, D.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and states in

pertinent part:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to

the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature,

custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things

and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable

matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the

subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible

at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. 

“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be

allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Oakes v.

Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Casualty

& Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D. N.J. 1990); see Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418,

429 (9th Cir. 1975) (parties opposing discovery are required to carry a heavy burden to show why

discovery should be denied). 

Defendants have made no showing that the documents sought are privileged and therefore

shielded from discovery in this action. See e.g., Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D.

Cal. 1995) (party asserting the official information privilege must properly invoke it by making a

“substantial threshold showing”) (quoting Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 669 (N.D. Cal.

1987)). Any grievances or complaints filed by plaintiff’s cellmate, inmate Stephens, concerning the

incident that both inmates were involved in and which gives rise to plaintiff’s claim in this action

are discoverable. 

Defendants’ conclusory assertion that they do not have possession, custody, or control is not

persuasive. Defendants have tendered no satisfactory explanation why they would not have access

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 85 Filed 01/26/07 Page 3 of 5
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

to complaints filed against them by inmates. Defendants’ objections are overruled and they are

ordered to produce any complaints or grievances submitted or filed by inmate Stephens concerning

the incident of alleged force on April 9, 2004. 

With respect to request number four, plaintiff seeks documents relating to grievances filed

by CSP-Corcoran inmates concerning medical care from April 9, 2004 to “the date of your

response,” and documents created by staff in response to said grievances. (Exhibits B, D.)

Defendants’ objections to this request are sustained in that the request is vague and overly broad.

Further, it is not obvious to the court that such documents are relevant, and plaintiff made no

showing of relevance in his November 6 response. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel a

response to request number four is denied.

Finally, in request number seven and as clarified by plaintiff in his response, plaintiff seeks

a memorandum issued on or around September 2004, in which Warden Scribner directed staff

members to cease using pepper spray on inmates kicking their cell doors. Plaintiff asserts the memo

is not confidential and it was distributed to staff. Defendants’ original objection to this request as

overly broad, vague, and ambiguous was justified. The request has now been narrowed and clarified

by plaintiff and the memo at issue is subject to discovery by plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

motion to compel is granted in that defendants shall serve a response to request number seven, as

narrowed and clarified by plaintiff in his response.

The deadline for the completion of all discoverywas October 30, 2006. However, in its order

of October 23, 2006, the court stated that it would allow discovery to continue limited to the

subpoenas duces tecum and motion to compel at issue in the order. (Doc. 71, 2:22-25 & 3:13-15.)

In light of the instant resolution of plaintiff’s second round of filings concerning subpoenas duces

tecum and motion to compel, discovery is now closed with the very limited exception of any further

motions or orders needed to effect production of the discovery sought in requests three and seven.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion seeking the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum directing Warden

Scribner to produce documents, filed November 6, 2006, is DENIED on the ground

///

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 85 Filed 01/26/07 Page 4 of 5
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

that plaintiff failed to make the threshold showing in compliance with the court’s

orders of October 23, 2006;

2. Plaintiff’s motion seeking the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum directing former

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Director Jeanne Woodford

to produce documents, filed November 22, 2006, is DENIED on the ground that

plaintiff failed to make the threshold showing in compliance with the court’s orders

of October 23, 2006; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to document production requests three and

seven is GRANTED;

4. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to document production request four is

DENIED;

5. Defendants have thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to serve their

responses to requests three and seven on plaintiff; and 

6. The discovery phase of this litigation is now closed, with the limited exception of any

further motions or orders needed to effect production of the discovery sought in

requests three and seven.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 85 Filed 01/26/07 Page 5 of 5