Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01452/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01452-3/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

06cv1452-JM(BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FAOUR ABDALLAH, FRAIHAT,

Plaintiff,

v.

COHEN, UNIT MANAGER AT CCA; et

al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06cv1452-JM (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL 

[Doc. No. 47]

On September 19, 2007, Defendants sought leave to file a motion to

compel production of documents. Doc. No. 46. On September 24, 2007,

the Court granted Defendants’ request and ordered the Clerk’s Office to

file the motion to compel, which was attached to the application for

leave. Doc. No. 48. Pursuant to the briefing schedule set by the

Court, Plaintiff timely opposed the motion [Doc. No. 55], and Defendants

filed a reply on October 16, 2007 [Doc. No. 53]. The Court found the

motion suitable for decision on the papers without oral argument and

took the matter under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

Doc. No. 48.

Having considered all of the briefing and supporting documents

presented, and for the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion to

Case 3:06-cv-01452-JM-BLM Document 56 Filed 11/06/07 Page 1 of 10
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 Request for Production No.1 states: “Please sign and have notarized the

enclosed institutional file releases from the following entities: (a) United States

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (b) United States Marshals Service, (c) United

States Department of Justice, and (d) Department of Homeland Security.” Defs.’ Mem.,

2 06cv1452-JM(BLM)

compel [Doc. No. 47] is GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action against several employees of

Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”) pursuant to Bivens v. Six

Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Compl. at 1. Plaintiff, a civil immigration detainee who previously was

detained at CCA’s San Diego Correctional Facility and now is being held

by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at its El Centro Processing

Center, alleges that (1) Defendants Cohen and Lebya-Gonzales interfered

with his First Amendment right of legal access by delaying his legal

mail, which proximately caused Plaintiff to lose his immigration appeal,

(2) Defendant Clover humiliated and retaliated against him for utilizing

the facility’s grievance process, and (3) Defendants Soria, Clover,

Howard and Easterling violated Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment Due Process

rights by failing to interview witnesses and give him a formal hearing

on his grievances. Id. at 5-8. As a result of these alleged

violations, Plaintiff maintains that he is suffering from “serious

mental stress” and, accordingly, seeks $7,000,000.00 in damages. Id. at

5, 8. 

On June 8, 2007, Defendants served Plaintiff with their first set

of requests for production of documents. Mem. P. & A. Supp. Defs.’ Mot.

to Compel (“Defs.’ Mem.”) at 2. Plaintiff responded to these requests

on August 6, 2007, but objected to Request for Production Nos. 1, 2 and

6, which sought Plaintiff’s institutional and immigration records1, on

Case 3:06-cv-01452-JM-BLM Document 56 Filed 11/06/07 Page 2 of 10
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

Ex. 1 at 3. Request for Production No. 2 states: “Please produce the entire court

file: In re: FRAIHAT, Faour Abdallah, In Removal Proceedings, Case No. A76 697 069; 93

167 376, United States Department of Justice, Immigration Review and Appeals.” Id.,

Ex. 1 at 4. Request for Production No. 6 states: “Please produce each and every

institutional file from each and every correctional facility in which YOU have been

detained/incarcerated.” Id., Ex. 1 at 5. 

3 06cv1452-JM(BLM)

the grounds that the requested records contain “confidential documents”

and “are not relevant to this case.” Id. at 2, Ex. 2 at 2. After

meeting and conferring unsuccessfully with Plaintiff in an effort to

resolve the parties’ dispute over the requests for which Plaintiff

served objections, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel.

LEGAL STANDARD

The scope of discovery is defined by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(b). Pursuant to that rule, litigants may obtain discovery

regarding “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or

defense of any party . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant

information for discovery purposes includes any information “reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” and need

not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id. District courts

enjoy broad discretion both to determine relevancy for discovery

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

to limit discovery to prevent its abuse, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)

(instructing that courts may limit discovery where it is “unreasonably

cumulative or duplicative,” “obtainable from some other source that is

more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive,” or where its

burden or expense “outweighs its likely benefit”).

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-01452-JM-BLM Document 56 Filed 11/06/07 Page 3 of 10
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 06cv1452-JM(BLM)

DISCUSSION

In the instant motion, Defendants seek an order compelling

Plaintiff to produce all of his institutional records, which include

records regarding his medical history, disciplinary history, and past

immigration proceedings. Defs.’ Mem. at 3. To facilitate this

production, Defendants have requested that Plaintiff sign releases

authorizing the institutions where he has been detained for either

criminal or immigration reasons to provide Defendants with his records.

Id. at 3-4. Defendants contend that to the extent Plaintiff seeks

compensatory damages for emotional distress, his medical records are

relevant to the issue of whether Defendants’ conduct, in fact, caused

Plaintiff’s emotional distress symptoms or whether he had preexisting

emotional distress issues. Id. Also relevant in Defendants’ view is

whether or not Plaintiff has continued to seek treatment for his mental

distress. Id. at 4. 

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s other institutional records are

relevant to determine whether Plaintiff has a prior history of similar

claims and/or problems concerning mail processing issues, grievance

process issues or disciplinary issues. Id. Specifically in regard to

Plaintiff’s disciplinary history, Defendants note that Plaintiff has

claimed in this lawsuit that he was subject to segregation based upon

false disciplinary write-ups created in retaliation for his filing

grievances and lawsuits. Id. Defendants contend that the extent of

Plaintiff’s institutional disciplinary history at other institutions is,

therefore, relevant to Defendants’ defense that Plaintiff’s corrective

history is a product of his pattern of repeated disciplinary violations,

not retaliation. Id.

///

Case 3:06-cv-01452-JM-BLM Document 56 Filed 11/06/07 Page 4 of 10
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 06cv1452-JM(BLM)

Finally, to the extent these immigration records are not included

in Defendants’ first and sixth production requests, Defendants’ Request

for Production No. 2 specifically seeks the complete court files for “In

re: FRAIHAT, Faour Abdallah, In Removal Proceedings, Case No. A76 697

069; 93 167 376, United States Department of Justice, Immigration Review

and Appeals.” Id., Ex. 1 at 4. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s

immigration records are relevant to determine whether, but for the delay

in postage, the Board of Immigration Appeals would have granted

Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider. Id. at 3. It is Defendants’ belief

that the immigration files will show that the motion would have been

denied regardless and that any error in delaying Plaintiff’s mail was,

therefore, harmless. Id. 

In his opposition to the motion to compel, Plaintiff states that he

“does not mind” if Defendants obtain his California Department of

Corrections and Department of Homeland Security medical records so long

as they also provide him with a copy. Pl.’s Answering to Defs.’ Mot. to

Compel (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) at 2. As for the other institutional records,

Plaintiff objects on the grounds that the requests call for confidential

documents that are not relevant to this case. Id. at 2. Additionally,

he states that his criminal and immigration files were sealed by a judge

and are not available for public access. Id. Plaintiff does not

provide any explanation or documentary evidence supporting this claim

that his records have been sealed. 

As an initial matter, the Court finds that both Plaintiff’s past

and current medical records are relevant and must be produced. The

scope of discoverable information is broad — litigants may obtain

discovery regarding “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the

claim or defense of any party . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Here,

Case 3:06-cv-01452-JM-BLM Document 56 Filed 11/06/07 Page 5 of 10
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 In Request for Production No. 6, Defendants request that Plaintiff “produce

each and every institutional file from each and every correctional facility in which

YOU have been detained/incarcerated.” Defs.’ Mem., Ex. 1 at 5. Though Defendants did

not provide a release form for the CDC in connection with Request for Production No.

1, Defendants now request that Plaintiff also be ordered to execute an institutional

and medical records release for the CDC. Id. at 4 n.12. Because Plaintiff

specifically agreed to allow access to his CDC medical file and because this agreement

is responsive to Request for Production No. 6 (regardless of whether or not Defendants

attached a CDC release form to the requests), the Court also grants Defendants’ request

as to Plaintiff’s CDC medical records. 

6 06cv1452-JM(BLM)

Plaintiff has claimed seven million dollars worth of damages as a result

of “serious mental stress.” Compl. at 5, 8. Defendants therefore are

entitled to investigate whether Plaintiff’s symptoms pre-dated his

confinement at their facility to support their potential defense that

these symptoms are not attributable to Defendants’ conduct.

Additionally, whether or not Plaintiff has continued to seek treatment

for his mental distress is directly relevant to the amount, if any, of

damages. Particularly in light of the fact that Plaintiff no longer

objects to the production of these documents, the Court finds that these

documents are discoverable and GRANTS Defendants’ motion as to

Plaintiff’s medical records.2

However, the Court finds no authority for granting Plaintiff’s

request that Defendant be required to provide Plaintiff with copies of

his medical records. Defendants have not expressly agreed to do so and

Plaintiff has provided no case law or statutory authority demonstrating

that they are required to provide him with copies. While Plaintiff is

proceeding in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides coverage only

for the costs of service of process, printing the appellate record, and

preparing transcripts of proceedings (where required by the district

Case 3:06-cv-01452-JM-BLM Document 56 Filed 11/06/07 Page 6 of 10
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 Plaintiff obviously is entitled to obtain copies of any documents received

by Defendants from third parties but Plaintiff must pay the reasonable copying costs

for such documents.

4 Though Defendants refer to this as a “motion to reconsider” (Defs.’ Mem.

at 3), Plaintiff explains in his complaint that he sought to file a notice of appeal

of the immigration judge’s decision and he attaches the referenced notice. See Compl.

7 06cv1452-JM(BLM)

court) — not routine discovery costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants

to provide copies of all medical records obtained, Plaintiff’s request

is DENIED.3 

In regard to Plaintiff’s disciplinary and immigration records, the

Court finds that Plaintiff’s institutional records are directly relevant

to Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ defenses. Under Rule 26,

Defendants may request any and all information “reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Brown Bag Software v.

Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court agrees

that records from institutions where Plaintiff has been detained, which

demonstrate whether or not Plaintiff has experienced or claimed mail

processing issues, grievance process issues or disciplinary issues,

would be probative as to Plaintiff’s credibility and the robustness of

his claims in this case. For instance, as Defendants point out, a

finding that Plaintiff has a long history of causing disciplinary

problems would tend to undermine his claim that Defendant Clover’s

alleged threat to place him on administrative segregation was an attempt

to retaliate against him as opposed to a legitimate response to

misconduct. Similarly, Defendants cannot defend themselves against

Plaintiff’s claim that their delay in mailing Plaintiff’s notice of

appeal4 to the Board of Immigration Appeals caused him to lose his case

Case 3:06-cv-01452-JM-BLM Document 56 Filed 11/06/07 Page 7 of 10
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

at 4 (and first attachment). 

5 However, to the extent Defendants’ briefing suggests that Defendants seek

to obtain Plaintiff’s immigration records in cases A 76 697 069 and A 93 167 376 for

purposes of using them in cases pending before the Ninth Circuit ( see Defs.’ Mem. at

3), this is a wholly improper abuse of discovery, which this order does not authorize.

Additionally, if the Certified Administrative Record of Plaintiff’s case A 76 697 069

is, in fact, publicly available and thus equally available to Defendants, Defendants

are hereby ordered to obtain that case file from the public record. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) (the court shall limit discovery where the information sought is

“obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less

expensive”). 

8 06cv1452-JM(BLM)

(or seek to mitigate their damages) without reviewing the records of

Plaintiff’s appeal to determine his likelihood of success on the merits.

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to obtain the discovery necessary

to defend against Plaintiff’s claims.5 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Contrary to Plaintiff’s view, his confidentiality objections are

insufficient to justify the withholding of relevant evidence. In fact,

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically

contemplates that confidential information may be requested in discovery

and provides various mechanisms for protecting the confidential nature

of the documents without impeding the discovery process. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(c). Plaintiff has not sought protection under this rule,

however, and the information Plaintiff has provided to date does not

demonstrate that Plaintiff’s disciplinary and immigration records

warrant any heightened degree of protection. Plaintiff has provided no

evidence to support his assertion that his disciplinary and immigration

records were “sealed” by some other judge nor has he explained in what

context or proceeding this sealing occurred and why it binds this Court.

Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff has any expectation of

Case 3:06-cv-01452-JM-BLM Document 56 Filed 11/06/07 Page 8 of 10
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

9 06cv1452-JM(BLM)

confidentiality in his disciplinary or immigration records (Plaintiff

has provided no authority to support such a notion), he has waived it by

placing his disciplinary history and immigration status at issue via the

claims in this case. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s

disciplinary and immigration records must be produced.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is hereby ordered to:

(1) produce or make available to Defendants for copying any and all

documents responsive to Request for Production Nos. 1, 2 and 6 that are

within Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control, 

(2) execute all release forms necessary to effectuate the

disclosure of his institutional records to Defendants from (a) United

States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (b) United States Marshals

Service, (c) United States Department of Justice, (d) Department of

Homeland Security, and (e) California Department of Corrections, and 

(3) forward the executed release forms, together with Supplemental

Responses to Defendants’ First Request for Production Nos. 1, 2 and 6,

to Defendants by November 21, 2007. 

Plaintiff is hereby warned that failure to comply with any of this

Court’s orders or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may result in the

imposition of sanctions including monetary sanctions, evidentiary

sanctions and/or the dismissal or default of your case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 7, 2007

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01452-JM-BLM Document 56 Filed 11/06/07 Page 9 of 10
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

10 06cv1452-JM(BLM)

COPY TO: 

HONORABLE JEFFREY T. MILLER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-01452-JM-BLM Document 56 Filed 11/06/07 Page 10 of 10