Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00269/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00269-29/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Vincent C. Bruce (“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 proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

claims against: (1) Defendants Adams, Hense, Ward, Clark, Fulks, Wan, Frauenheim, Lloren, Fields, 

and Tripp for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; (2) Defendants Adams, Hense, Ward, 

Clark, Fulks, Wan, Lloren, Fields, and Tripp for violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment; and (3) Defendants Adams, Schottgen, and Fields for failing to provide Plaintiff with 

adequate clothing in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, filed on November 22, 2013, seeking 

to compel Defendants’ answers to admissions. (ECF No. 153.) Defendants opposed the motion on 

December 10, 2013. (ECF No. 157.) Plaintiff replied on January 15, 2014. (ECF No. 164.) The 

motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 

VINCENT C. BRUCE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00269-BAM PC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

ANSWERS TO ADMISSION REQUESTS

(ECF No. 153)

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 177 Filed 09/29/14 Page 1 of 6
2

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

II. Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admissions1

“A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending 

action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the 

application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described 

documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). Rule 36 provides:

If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the 

answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the 

substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or 

deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or 

deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a 

reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable 

inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it 

to admit or deny. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).

“The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5), and as with 

other forms of discovery, it is well established that boilerplate objections do not suffice, e.g., 

Thompson v. Yates, 2011 WL 5975469, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011).

Finally, “[t]he requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or 

objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). “Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that 

an answer be served. On finding that an answer does not comply with this rule, the court may order 

either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.” Id. 

A. Request for Admission (RFA) No. 2

RFA 1: Admit that CDCR staff are required to enforce all CDCR regulations and procedures 

that govern inmates.

Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that, as phrased, it is vague. 

Without waiving that objection, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant can neither admit nor deny 

this request, because not all CDCR staff are authorized to “enforce” all regulations and procedures.2

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

 

1

The parties are familiar with the procedural background of this action; therefore, the Court finds it unnecessary to recount 

that background in the instant order. 

2 Each defendant responded individually, but the responses were similar. As such, it is unnecessary to reproduce each 

individual response. 

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 177 Filed 09/29/14 Page 2 of 6
3

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

The Court finds Plaintiff’s request for admission to be vague and overbroad. Additionally, 

Defendants cannot be expected to review each and every CDCR regulation and procedure pertaining 

to inmates in order to determine which staff members are authorized to enforce the regulation or 

procedure. 

B. Request for Admission No. 7

RFA 7: Admit there is no regulation prohibiting inmates from communicating with persons 

outside the facility about a lawful “picket” of prison conditions.

Response: Defendants all objected to Interrogatory No. 7 as follows:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that, as phrased, it is vague and calls for legal 

expertise outside Defendant’s purview.

Most Defendants went on to respond as follows:

Without waiving that objection, Defendant responds as follows:

Defendant can neither admit nor deny this request in the abstract, because the specific

circumstances of each case will determine the appropriate response.

Defendant Lloren went on to respond as follows:

Without waiving that objection, Defendant responds as follows:

Defendant can neither admit nor deny this request because he does not know.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Lloren to respond is denied. 

Pursuant to Rule 36, a responding party may assert a lack of knowledge as a reason for failing 

to admit or deny the request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). The request seeks information of a legal nature, 

which Defendant Lloren indicated was outside his purview. 

C. Request for Admission No. 15

RFA 15: Admit that any CDCR employee can be subject to employee discipline if it is 

determined the employee was involved in unlawfully depriving inmates of privileges and program 

opportunities required by the regulations. 

Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is irrelevant to the issues in

this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 177 Filed 09/29/14 Page 3 of 6
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

waiving this objection, Defendants responds: Defendant can neither admit nor deny this request in the 

abstract. The specific circumstances of each case will determine whether discipline is appropriate. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

Plaintiff’s request is not relevant to a claim or defense in this action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. 

Further, Plaintiff’s request is overbroad. Defendants cannot be compelled to provide a response in the 

abstract about staff disciplinary matters.

D. Request for Admission No. 23

RFA 23: Admit that the Institutional Gang Investigations conclusion referred to on page 3 of 

the Second Level Appeal Response Log. No. SATF-04-02350 (attached as Exhibit B) is contained in 

the confidential memorandum dated March 30, 2004, authored by Officer Martins. 

Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it requests information that is 

classified as “confidential” within the meaning of California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 

3321. Such information is prohibited from being provided to inmates under California Code of 

Regulations, Title 15, Section 3450(d). 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. 

Although not entirely clear from Plaintiff’s moving papers or Defendants’ response, it does not 

appear that the request seeks confidential information not already disclosed to Plaintiff. In other 

words, the request merely asks whether the conclusion in the Second Level Appeal Response, which 

has been provided to Plaintiff, also is contained in the March 30, 2004 confidential memorandum. 

E. Request for Admission No. 26

RFA 26: Admit the “unrest” referred to in the confidential memorandum dated March 18, 

2004 by defendant Tripp included presentation of inmate grievances through a peaceful hunger strike. 

Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it requests information that is 

classified as “confidential” within the meaning of California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 

3321. Such information is prohibited from being provided to inmates under California Code of 

Regulations, Title 15, Section 3450(d). 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. 

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 177 Filed 09/29/14 Page 4 of 6
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

Although Defendants argue that a response would require the disclosure of confidential 

information in violation of the law, the Court cannot ascertain how an admission or a denial of this 

request would disclose confidential information. Either the “unrest” was considered to include the 

filing of grievances or it was not. If a particular defendant does not know, then that defendant may 

properly assert a lack of knowledge. 

F. Request for Admission No. 41

RFA 41: Admit that it is the routine and established practice for custody staff from C Facility 

Yard #2 to assist with escorting and security duties on Facility Yard #1, if needed.

Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that, as phrased, it is vague, and it 

is irrelevant to the issues in this case and is not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection, Defendant responds: Defendant can neither 

admit nor deny this request in the abstract. The specific circumstances of each situation will 

determine whether it is appropriate for custody staff to provide assistance. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.

Plaintiff’s request is vague and overbroad. Defendants have indicated that specific 

circumstances, not routine or established practice, dictate whether it is appropriate for certain custody 

staff to provide assistance. 

G. Request for Admission No. 42

RFA 42: Admit the authenticity of the Rule Violation Report hearing and findings for inmate 

Lindley on charges of Inciting a Hunger Strike, log no. C-04-04-014, a copy of which is attached 

hereto as Exhibit D. 

Response: Defendant can neither admit nor deny this request, because he is not qualified to 

authenticate the document in question. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

Defendants contend that they were not involved in the creation of the document and have no 

personal knowledge of its authenticity. As such, they are not qualified, under Federal Rule of 

Evidence 901, to admit to its authenticity. It is not Defendants’ responsibility to authenticate 

Plaintiff’s evidence. See, e.g., Milliken v. Lightfield, 2012 WL 1108825, *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2012) 

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 177 Filed 09/29/14 Page 5 of 6
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

(defendants not required to provide further response to RFA because they were not custodians of the 

records, did not generate them and had not seen them). 

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. Where Plaintiff’s motion 

was granted, Defendants have twenty-one (21) days to serve amended responses. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to admission requests, filed on November 22, 

2013, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants have twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order within 

which to serve amended responses to RFAs 23 and 26.

b. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is denied as to RFAs 2, 7, 15, 41 and 42; 

and 

2. Any motion for an extension of a deadline set forth above must be served on or before 

the deadline in question.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 177 Filed 09/29/14 Page 6 of 6