Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01354/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01354-11/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL HARRIS, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

S. ESCAMILLA, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-MJS (PC) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO 

ANSWER ADMISSIONS AND 

INTERROGATORIES

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO 

PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR EXTRA 

INTERROGATORIES

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(ECF NO. 61)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The case proceeds against 

Defendant Escamilla for violating Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights 

during a cell search on January 14, 2013. (ECF Nos. 9-10, 33 & 26.)

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 22
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

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s December 17, 2015 “amended motion to compel

Defendant to answer completely, produce documents, and allow extra interrogatories.”

(ECF No. 61.) Defendant filed his opposition on January 7, 2016. (ECF No. 62.) 

Plaintiff’s reply was filed on February 26, 2016. (ECF No. 74.) The matter is submitted 

pursuant to Local Rule 230(/).

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

In May or June 2015, Plaintiff propounded his first set of discovery on Defendant

(“Set 1”), which included 34 Requests for Admissions (“RFA”) and 12 interrogatories. 

(See Pl.’s Mot. Compel (“MTC”), ECF No. 51 at 23-42.) On June 22, 2015, Defendant 

submitted his responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Id. at 44-70.) Defendant 

objected to many of the RFAs because they were phrased as questions and, thus, were 

in essence interrogatories.

On July 22, 2015, Plaintiff propounded a second set of RFAs and interrogatories

(“Set 2”), titled “Amended Requests for Admissions - Set One and Objections” and 

“Amended Interrogatories and Objections to Set One Responces [sic] by Defendants.“

(Pl.’s MTC, ECF No. 51 at 72-93.) Set 2 addressed some of Defendant’s objections to

Set 1. 

On August 25, 2015, defense counsel responded via letter to Plaintiff’s

comments in Set Two regarding Defendant’s Set One objections. (Pl.’s MTC, ECF No. 

51 at 91-92.)

Dissatisfied with Defendant’s responses to Set 1 and Set 2, Plaintiff moved to 

compel Defendant to “answer interrogatories completely, to produce requested 

documents, and to allow rephrased interrogatories, admissions.” (ECF No. 51.) On

December 1, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel on several grounds: 

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 22
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

one, that Plaintiff failed to identify which of the Defendant’s responses to the original 

discovery request were inadequate and why; two, that Plaintiff never served a Request 

for Production of Documents pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34; and three, 

Plaintiff did not indicate how many additional interrogatories he sought to serve and 

why. The Court did, however, grant Plaintiff fourteen days to amend his motion to 

compel. (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff timely filed the instant amended motion to compel on 

December 17, 20151. (ECF No. 61.) Defendant filed his opposition on January 7, 2016.

(ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff’s reply was filed on February 26, 2016. (ECF No. 74.)

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith. Asea, 

Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir.1981). Parties may obtain 

discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to 

the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information 

need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party 

moving to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not 

justified. E.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P., 2012 WL 113799, at 

*1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS (PC), 2008 

WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the moving party to inform 

the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for 

 

1

Plaintiff’s motion was filed with the Court on December 17, 2015, but the certificate of service shows it

was delivered to prison authorities on December 14, 2015. Therefore under the prison mailbox rule, 

Plaintiff’s motion is deemed timely. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 22
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

each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why the responding 

party's objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack v. 

Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P., 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 

2011).

The court must limit discovery if the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs 

its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). “In each instance, the determination 

whether . . . information is discoverable because it is relevant to the claims or defenses 

depends on the circumstances of the pending action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory 

Committee’s Note (2000 Amendment) (Gap Report) (Subdivision (b)(1)).

As particularly applicable here, pursuant to Rule 37(a), a party propounding 

discovery may seek an order compelling disclosure when an opposing party has failed 

to respond or has provided evasive or incomplete responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(3)(B). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be 

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

a difference between an outright denial of a matter and a denial on the basis of lack of 

sufficient information or knowledge to affirmatively admit or deny. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

36(a)(4) (“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 party may not give 

lack of information as a reason for failure to admit or deny “unless he states that he has 

made a reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by him 

is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny.” Asea, 669 F.2d at 1246. It is not enough, 

however, for a party to simply state that he or she has made a “reasonable inquiry. Id. 

(“We are not persuaded that an answer to a request for admission necessarily complies 

with Rule 36(a) merely because it includes a statement that the party has made a 

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 4 of 22
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

reasonable inquiry.”). To permit a party to simply track the language of Rule 36(a)(4) 

without providing an explanation as to what reasonable inquiry was made would allow 

that party to abuse the discovery process. Id.; see also Jacobs v. Sullivan, No. 1:05-cv01625-LJO-GSA, 2012 WL 2995648, at *9 (E.D. Cal. July 23, 2012) (Defendant’s 

response that ‘after a reasonable inquiry and diligent search, she has no documents to 

refresh her recollection’ deemed inadequate by Court because she failed to describe in 

her responses any of her efforts to search for information, or describe any of the 

documents she reviewed to refresh her recollection.)

II. DISCUSSION

The Court’s prior order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses 

instructed Plaintiff to identify which of Defendant’s responses he deemed inadequate. 

(ECF No. 56 p. 3.) In compliance with the Court’s instructions, Plaintiff’s amended 

motion to compel lists each individual request for which he seeks to compel a response. 

(ECF No. 61.) However, Plaintiff appears to have conflated his two separate sets of 

RFAs and Interrogatories in his amended motion, and demands responses to RFAs and 

Interrogatories propounded in Set 1 that appear to have been amended and 

superseded by Set 2. Therefore, unless otherwise noted, the Court will only refer to

Plaintiff’s amended RFAs and interrogatories appearing in Set 2 and Defendant’s 

answers thereto. 

A. Requests For Admissions

Under Rule 36(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party “may serve on 

any other party a written request to admit . . . the truth of any matters within the scope of 

Rule 36(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the application of law to facts, or opinions about 

either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents.” The purpose of a 

request for admission is to “expedite trial by establishing certain material facts as true 

and thus narrowing the range of issues of trial.” Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. 

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 5 of 22
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

Co, 669 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1981). As explained in the 1970 Amendment 

Advisory Committee Notes, “the rule is in keeping with the basic principle of the 

discovery rules that a reasonable burden may be imposed on the parties when its 

discharge will facilitate preparation for trial and ease the trial process.” Advisory 

Committee’s Note to Rule 36(a), 48 F.R.D. 531, 533 (1970). 

In accordance with these principles, the court grants in part and denies in part 

Plaintiff’s amended motion to compel RFAs as follows:

1. RFA No. 1, Set 2 (amended from RFA No. 3, Set 1):

Request, ECF 51, p. 24: 

Admitt (sic) that 1-14-13 was your first day working in CSP-Cor. 

3c03 in 2013.

Response, ECF No. 52-1 p. 5:

Defendant admits January 14, 2013 was the first day he worked in 

Facility 3C building 3 in 2013.

Plaintiff acknowledges in his reply brief that Defendant answered this request in 

full. (ECF No. 74 p. 8.) The issue over RFA No. 1, Set 2, apparently having been 

resolved, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is MOOT as to RFA No. 1, Set 2.

2. RFA No. 4, Set 1:

Request, ECF 51 p. 24: 

Was 1-14-13 the First Day you worked in 3c-building 3 in a year 

prior (sic).

Response, ECF No. 52-1 p. 5:

Defendant objects that this is an interrogatory and not a proper 

request for admission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. 

The request does not seek the admission of a fact or genuineness 

of any document, and is propounded in an attempt to circumvent 

the numerosity limitation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

33(a)(1). In addition, this request is vague and ambiguous as 

Defendant is uncertain what fact Plaintiff is requesting that 

Defendant admit or deny.

Defendant’s objections are well-taken, but as a practical matter, it appears the 

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 6 of 22
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

7

question being asked has been answered with the information provided in response to

RFA No. 1, Set 2. Thus Plaintiff’s motion to compel is MOOT as to RFA No. 4, Set 1, as 

well.

3. RFA No. 2, Set 2 (amended from RFA No. 6, Set 1):

Request, ECF No. 51 p. 73:

Admitt (sic) you have never had a incounter (sic) with Mr. Harris 

(Plaintiff) before 1-14-13, written or verbal.

Response, ECF No. 52-1 p. 71:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague 

and ambiguous with respect to the term “incounter with Mr. Harris 

(Plaintiff) before 1-14-13 written or verbal.” The request is also 

compound and requires Defendant to speculate as to what Plaintiff 

means by the term “incounter.” Subject to and without waiving the 

forgoing objections, Defendant responds that after a reasonably 

(sic) inquiry, he lacks sufficient information or knowledge to 

respond to this request and, on that basis, denies this request. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s response is deliberately untruthful, and he

refuses to accept Defendant’s claim that Defendant conducted a reasonable inquiry into 

the matter. (ECF 61 p. 4.) (“The Defendant is in bad faith being untruthful to plaintiff’s 

own knowledge. And is attempting to obstruct the Discovery process and in this case 

expects his lack of memory to suffice for documentation (sic)”). Defendant argues that

as he already responded to the request, Plaintiff is not entitled to a further response.

The request is not a model of clarity, but it reasonably may be read to ask 

whether Defendant had any prior written or verbal contact of any kind with Plaintiff. To 

the extent that Defendant reasonably can review records to determine if he has ever 

interacted with Plaintiff, it is incumbent upon him to do so. Asea, 669 F.2d at 1246-47.

If in fact Defendant has no recollection or record of any such contact, it would be simple 

and expedient to so state.

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 7 of 22
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

8

Thus, the Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel with regards to RFA

No. 2, Set 2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Defendant shall provide 

a further response to Plaintiff along the lines indicated above or otherwise in 

accordance with the Federal Rules.

4. RFA No. 3, Set 2 (Amended from RFA No. 7, Set 1)

Request, ECF No. 51 p. 73:

Admitt (sic) you moved Mr. Tellez CDC # F-83298 into 3c03-138 up 

on 1-14-13 (sic).

Response, ECF No. 52-1 p. 71:

Defendant denies that he moved Inmate Tellez on January 14, 

2013

Plaintiff contends that Defendant was untruthful in denying RFA No. 3, Set 2. 

However, simply because Plaintiff does not like the response does not mean that he is 

entitled to a different one. Scott v. Palmer, 1:09-cv-01329, 2014 WL 6685810, at *3 

(E.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2014) (“Mere distrust and suspicion regarding discovery responses 

do not form a legitimate basis to further challenge responses which are facially legally 

sufficient; and Plaintiff is entitled neither to continue demanding additional and/or 

different evidence in support of discovery responses already provided”) (emphasis in 

original). If Plaintiff thinks the response is false, he may attempt to so show at trial in an 

effort to impeach Defendant’s credibility. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a 

response to RFA No. 3, Set. 2 is DENIED.

5. RFA No. 5, Set 2 (amended from RFA No. 9, Set 1)2

Request, ECF 51 p. 26:

Admitt (sic) you searched no property Belonging to 3c03-138 up 

 

2 RFA No. 9, Set 1 reads: “Isn’t it true Mr. Tellez CDCR No. F-83298, had no property on 1-14-13,” which 

is a different question from “Admitt you searched no property Belonging to 3c03-138 up during the search 

of 3c03-138 on 1/14/13.” In Plaintiff’s amended motion to compel (ECF No. 61), Plaintiff requests a 

response to RFA No. 9, Set 1. For the purposes of clarity and fairness to both parties, the Court will treat 

any amended requests in Set 2 as superseding the corresponding request in Set 1.

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 8 of 22
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

during the search of 3c03-138 on 1/14/13 (sic).

Response, ECF No. 52-1 p. 72:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague 

and ambiguous as to the term “property belonging to 3c03-138 up.” 

Subject to and without waiving this objection, Defendants (sic) 

denies this request. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s denial is in bad faith and a deliberate attempt to 

be vague and obstruct the discovery process. According to Plaintiff, Defendant must 

admit that Mr. Tellez had no property on the date in question. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant would have kept records of what property was recovered, if any, from Mr. 

Tellez, and that the lack of such records goes to prove that Mr. Tellez did not have 

property, and therefore was not searched. Defendant argues that as he affirmatively 

denied Plaintiff’s request, he is not required to give a different answer. 

Plaintiff must accept the response he received. Scott, 2014 WL 6685810 at *3. 

If he thinks it is false, he may attempt to so show at trial. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel a response to RFA No. 5, Set 2 is DENIED.

6. RFA No. 6, Set 2 (amended from RFA No. 12, Set. 1)

Request, ECF No. 51 p. 75:

Admitt (sic) the cell search of 3c03-138L on 1-14-13 was not a 

rotine search (sic).

Response, ECF No. 52-1 p. 72:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague

and ambiguous as to the term “rotine search.” Defendant is 

uncertain what Plaintiff means by this term. Subject to and without 

waiving this objection, and to the best of his understanding of this 

request, Defendant denies that the search he performed of

Plaintiff’s cell on January 14, 2013, was not a routine search. 

Plaintiff contends that Defendant should be made to answer this request because 

it is a proper question of fact, and one which it is Defendant’s duty to know. Defendant 

has answered Plaintiff’s request. While Plaintiff may not like the answer, he is not 

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 9 of 22
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

entitled on that basis to a different one. Scott, 2014 WL 6685810 at *3.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to RFA No. 6, Set 2 is DENIED. 

7. RFA No. 8, Set 2 (amended from RFA No. 14, Set 1):

Request, ECF No. 51 p. 76:

Admitt (sic) you removed a Quran from a gray cloth Book cover 

during the cell search of 3c03-138L on 1-14-13. No. 15 on the cell 

search slip, provided by the Defendant 1-15-13. 

Response, ECF No. 52-1 p. 73:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague 

and ambiguous as to exactly what fact Plaintiff is requesting the 

Defendant admit, and that it is compound. Subject to and without 

waiving the foregoing, and to the best of his understanding of this 

request, Defendant denies this request. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant should be made to answer this RFA as it goes to 

the heart of Plaintiff’s claim, to wit, how Defendant came to desecrate Plaintiff’s Quran.

Defendant has denied the request. Simply because Plaintiff did not like the answer he 

received to his RFA does not mean he can compel a different one. Scott, 2014 WL 

6685810 at *3. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to RFA No. 8, Set 2

is DENIED. 

8. RFA No. 18, Set 1 

Request, ECF No. 51 p. 29:

In the above discribed (sic) search, Did you not provide a cell 

search slip, Even after being requested for one, by R. Tellez, until 

the Next Day 24° Later.

Response, ECF No. 52-1 p. 10:

Defendant objects that this is an interrogatory and not a proper 

request for admission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. 

The request does not seek the admission of a fact or genuineness

of any document, and is propounded in an attempt to circumvent 

the numerosity limitation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

33(a)(1). In addition, this request is compound and defendant is 

uncertain what fact Plaintiff is requesting that Defendant admit or 

deny. Subject to these objections, Defendant admits providing a 

cell search slip for the search of Plaintiff’s cell conducted on 

January 14, 2013.

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 10 of 22
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

11

Again, the Request is far from clear and not properly stated in the form of a 

request for admission. Still, it seems clear that it is designed to have Defendant admit 

or deny that he waited twenty-four hours after the cell search to provide a cell search 

slip. It would be simple, expedient and serve the interests of justice to so admit or deny. 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to RFA No. 18, 

Set 1. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Defendant shall provide a 

further response to Plaintiff.

9. RFA No. 11, Set 2 (amended RFA No. 28, Set 1)

Request, ECF No. 51 p. 32:

Admitt you have never given Mr. Harris (Plaintiff) a 128 or a 115 

write-up or had any disciplinary problems with the Plaintiff. 

Response, ECF No. 52-1 p. 74:

Defendant objects that this request is compound in seeking 

admission of facts relating to at least three separate things: “a 128,” 

“a 115 write-up” and “disciplinary problems.” In addition, the term 

disciplinary problems is vague and requires Defendant to speculate 

as to what Plaintiff would consider to be a disciplinary problem. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant 

denies that has “never given Mr. Harris (Plaintiff) a 128,” and 

admits that to the best of recollection (sic) he has never given Mr. 

Harris a “115 write-up.” Defendant further responds that after a 

reasonable inquiry, he lacks sufficient information or knowledge to 

admit or deny this request as related to disciplinary problems, and 

on that basis, denies this request. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant will claim, falsely, that there was contraband 

found in Plaintiff’s cell during the cell search on January 14, 2013, and cites Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16-1 p. 9.) According 

to Plaintiff, if contraband had been found in Plaintiff’s cell, Defendant would have given 

Plaintiff a “write-up” or taken some other disciplinary action against Plaintiff. Plaintiff 

argues that the Defendant’s response is critical to showing that Defendant’s claim that

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 11 of 22
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

12

contraband was found in Plaintiff’s cell is false. Defendant argues that he properly 

denied RFA No. 11, Set 2. 

Defendant properly responded to those parts of the RFA that asked whether he 

had issued Plaintiff any CDC-128s or 115s, but stated that he lacked sufficient 

information to admit or deny Plaintiff’s request with regard to “disciplinary problems.” 

Defendant claims that the term “disciplinary problems” is too vague and 

ambiguous to answer. The Court disagrees. Not all inmate misconduct is serious 

enough to warrant a CDC Form 115 or 128-A write up; staff members are permitted to 

respond to “minor misconduct” with verbal counseling. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15 § 

3312(a)(1). If the verbal counseling successfully corrects the misconduct, no written 

report of the misconduct is necessary. Id. RFA No. 11, Set 2 asks about all disciplinary 

action, not just that which resulted in a formal write-up. Thus to the extent that 

Defendant is able, he should answer the request based upon his memory or records, if 

any, of any verbal disciplinary action taken by him against Plaintiff.

Here, Defendant answers that he lacks sufficient information or knowledge to 

respond to Plaintiff’s request after a reasonable inquiry, but neither his response to the 

original RFA nor his response to Plaintiff’s amended motion to compel offer any 

information as to what “reasonable inquiry” was made. Thus, the Court GRANTS 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to that portion of RFA No. 11, Set 2

concerning “disciplinary problems.” Defendant must provide Plaintiff with a further 

response within fourteen days, either admitting or denying the request or describing the 

reasonable inquiries that were made. Defendant’s failure to so respond will be deemed 

an admission.

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 12 of 22
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

13

10. RFA No. 29, Set 1 

Request, ECF No. 51 p. 33:

On or about 1-28-13, Did you conduct a cell search of 3c03-116L 

Inmate barnes (sic) CDCR No. F-21747 and throw his Quran on the 

Floor and step on it and kick it under the bunk.

Response, ECF No. 52-1 p. 75:

Defendant objects that this is an interrogatory and not a proper 

request for admission under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36. 

The request does not seek the admission of a fact or genuineness 

of any document, and is propounded in an attempt to circumvent 

the numerosity limitation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

33(a)(1). Moreover, this request is compound, and vague and 

ambiguous. Defendant is uncertain what fact Plaintiff is requesting 

that Defendant admit or deny. Subject to and without waiving these 

objections, Defendant denies throwing a Quran on the floor, 

stepping on it, or kicking it. 

Defendant has answered. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to RFA No. 29, 

Set 1, is DENIED.

B. Interrogatories

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), “[a]n interrogatory may relate to 

any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).” As with RFAs, the purpose of 

interrogatories is to expedite trial by narrowing and clarifying the issues and identifying 

potential witnesses or documents. Anderson v. Fresno Cty., Hum. Serv. Sys., No. 1:05-

cv-1325, 2007 WL 1865657, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2007). 

1. Interrogatory No. 1 

Request, ECF No. 51 p. 36:

In the 5 years prior to 1-14-13, Had you ever had material 

allegations of discrimination! (sic) Please list in order and the 

charge log no.

Response (ECF No. 52-1 p. 21)

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is 

vague and ambiguous as to the term “had material allegations of 

discrimination.” Defendant does not understand what Plaintiff 

means, and so this interrogatory requires Defendant to speculate 

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 13 of 22
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

14

as to what information Plaintiff seeks to discover. To the extent 

Plaintiff is requesting that Defendant list staff complaints asserting 

discrimination, Defendant responds that he is aware of no such 

complaints, including Plaintiff’s staff complaint pertaining to the 

search on January 14, 2013.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks information about other grievances not 

classified as staff complaints that mention Officer Escamilla, 

Defendant further objects that such grievances are not likely to lead 

to the discovery of admissible evidence as propensity evidence

would be barred under Federal Rule of Evidence 404. In addition, it 

would be unduly burdensome to require Defendant to search 

through all complaints of all inmates at CSP-Corcoran going back 

to 2008.

Defendant also objects on the grounds of safety, security and the 

privacy of other inmates. Plaintiff is not permitted to have access to 

grievances or complaints submitted by other inmates. Cal Code 

Regs. Tit. 15, § 3370.

Plaintiff argues that he needs information about Defendant’s prior discriminatory 

acts in order to prove Defendant’s malicious intent during the search of Plaintiff’s cell on 

January 14, 2013. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant is well aware of the staff 

complaint submitted by Plaintiff and is being untruthful in his denial.

Defendant objects on several grounds. Defendant objects that Interrogatory No. 

1 is vague and ambiguous with regards to the term “had material allegations of 

discrimination.” The Court agrees that the term “material” is vague. Defendant’s 

objection is therefore sustained on these grounds, and Plaintiff’s motion to compel a 

response to Interrogatory No. 1 is DENIED.

2. Interrogatory No. 5 

Request, ECF No. 51 p. 38:

Have you ever been found guilty of misconduct of any kind. (Please 

list conduct and Date) Log. No.

Response, ECF No. 52-1 p. 23:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is 

vague and ambiguous as to the term “misconduct of any kind” and 

“found guilty.” Defendant is also unsure what information Plaintiff is 

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 14 of 22
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

15

seeking with this request to “(Please list conduct and date) Log No.” 

To the extent Plaintiff is seeking information contained in 

Defendant’s personnel records, Defendant also objects on the 

grounds that personnel records are subject to the qualified privilege 

of official information and federal common law privilege. Pursuant 

to Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 

1991), such broad requests are generally not allowed on federal 

common law grounds. The confidential nature of employee 

personnel files prohibits the opening of such filed to a plaintiff for a 

general search which could reach well beyond the legitimate 

inquiries necessary. Id. Personnel files are also protected by the 

privacy rights of staff, including federal common-law, the California 

Constitution, and applicable California statutes such as Penal Code 

sections 832.7, 832.8, Government Code section 6254, and Civil 

Code sections 1798.24 and 1798.40 and California Code of 

Regulations Title 15 §3400. Defendant also objects on the grounds 

of safety and security and the privacy of other inmates. Plaintiff is 

not permitted to have access to the grievances or complaints filed 

by other inmates. Cal. Code. Regs. Tit. 15, §3370.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant 

responds that he has never been charged with or “found guilty” of 

any criminal “misconduct.”

Defendant only responds with regard to “criminal” misconduct; Plaintiff asked 

about any misconduct. Plaintiff clarifies in his amended motion to compel that this 

request includes past 602s filed against Defendant. Plaintiff argues that the discovery 

of this information is necessary to support his claim of misconduct by Defendant. 

Defendant objects on the grounds that the term “guilty” necessarily connotes “criminal” 

misconduct, and since Defendant answered that he has never been charged or found 

guilty of criminal misconduct Plaintiff cannot now amend his discovery request to seek 

information about misconduct included in 602s. Defendant also argues that information 

regarding other 602s raises security concerns and, in any event, 602s unrelated to this 

incident are irrelevant and inadmissible.

First, the Court does not read Plaintiff’s use of the term “guilty” to be limited to 

findings of guilt in a court of law. Reason dictates the term was intended to connote 

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 15 of 22
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

16

liability, i.e., to mean found “culpable,” “responsible,” “accountable,” or “blameworthy.” 

Therefore, Defendant’s objection that Plaintiff’s request was vague and ambiguous is 

overruled.

Defendant also argues that Defendant already answered Plaintiff’s requests for 

Defendant’s history of misconduct in his response to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 12. 

(ECF No. 52-1 p. 24-25.) Interrogatory No. 6 asked: “Have you ever had Allegations of 

Derogatory Remarks towards inmates, Please list by date and remark.” Interrogatory 

No. 12 asked: “Have you ever been Disciplined for misconduct List All Disciplinary 

Actions for the past 5 years prior to 2013.” The Court does not read these two requests 

to extend to and encompass the information sought by Interrogatory No. 5. Therefore, 

Defendant’s objection on the grounds that Plaintiff’s request is redundant is overruled.

Defendant also objected to Interrogatory No. 5 on a number of statutory and 

common law grounds pertaining to institutional security and inmate and staff privacy. 

The Court overrules Defendant’s objections. Defendant cites Sanchez v. City of Santa 

Ana, 936 F.2d 1027 (9th Cir. 1990), in support of his argument that the “confidential 

nature of employee personnel files prohibit the opening of such files to a plaintiff for a 

general search which could reach well beyond the legitimate inquiries necessary.” 

(ECF No. 52-1 p. 23.) However, under Sanchez, Defendant could comply with Plaintiff’s 

request without giving Plaintiff access to the actual personnel files. 936 F.2d at 1034 

(noting “[m]ost of the relevant information . . . could have been developed by 

interrogatories.”). Defendant also expressed concern about the privacy of inmates 

involved in prior complaints against Defendant. However, “[w]hile Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 

15 § 3370(b) may prevent Defendant[] from producing documents from another inmate’s 

central file absent a court order, it does not prevent Defendants from responding to an 

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 16 of 22
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

17

interrogatory on the same issues.” Hamilton v. Quinonez, 1:14-cv-1216, 2015 WL 

3660138, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2015); Cordoba v. Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2944, 

2012 WL 868926, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012) (Plaintiff “could and should have 

sought” information about Defendants' conduct from the central file of his inmate-enemy 

“through interrogatories, requests for admissions, or other available discovery devices”). 

Furthermore, under Cal. Penal Code § 832.7(c), Defendant “may disseminate data 

regarding the number, type, or disposition of complaints (sustained, not sustained, 

exonerated, or unfounded) made against [him] if that information is in a form which does 

not identify the individuals involved.”

3

 

Furthermore, under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of prior bad acts 

is admissible to show intent or absence of mistake or accident. Since it appears that 

Defendant may claim that if he did step on Plaintiff’s Quran, he did so accidentally, 

evidence of prior similar conduct could be admissible as impeachment evidence. United 

States v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 1997). Therefore, Defendant’s objection on 

admissibility grounds is overruled.

Lastly, Defendant points to the Declaration of Mr. A. Pacillas, Appeals 

Coordinator at CSP-Corcoran, to show that it would be unduly burdensome for 

Defendant to search through all past documents for evidence of misconduct. (ECF No. 

52-2) Mr. Pacillas avers that nearly 5,000 inmate appeals are filed each year at CSPCorcoran. In addition, only appeals that are classified as “staff complaints” are filed with 

a cross-reference to the staff member’s name. All other appeals are categorized by 

general subject matter only. (ECF No. 52-2 p. 2.) Mr. Pacillas does not specify how 

many complaints are classified as staff complaints. 

 

3 Defendant refers to several other California state statutes in his objection. The Court overrules 

Defendant’s objections on those grounds as well.

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 17 of 22
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

18

The Court acknowledges that Defendant cannot dedicate unlimited resources to 

searching all past inmate appeals for references to Defendant. However, Defendant 

should make a reasonable inquiry by at least searching staff complaints crossreferenced with Defendant’s name and then setting forth what he did not search and 

why.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 5 is GRANTED.

Defendant shall provide a further response to this interrogatory within fourteen (14) 

days.

3. Interrogatory No. 10 

Request, ECF No. 51 p. 40:

Did Inmate Barnes CDCR No. F-21747 3co3-116 make alligations 

(sic) of Desecration of his Quran by you in 2013 (List 602 or Log 

No.)

Response, ECF No. 51-2 p. 27:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is 

vague and ambiguous with respect to the term “alligations of 

desecration of his Quran.”

Defendant also objects on the grounds of safety and security and 

the privacy of other inmates. Plaintiff is not permitted to have 

access to grievances, complaints, or correspondence submitted by 

other inmates. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3370.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant 

responds that he does not know inmate Barnes (F-21747) and has 

no knowledge of any such 602 described by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff argues that his request is not vague and goes to the heart of the issue in 

his case, to wit, Defendant’s habitual discriminatory conduct towards inmates. Plaintiff 

also argues that Defendant disingenuously denies knowing inmate Barnes, and that 

while Defendant is not expected to remember every inmate he comes across, he is 

expected to check his records and provide a truthful answer. Defendant responds that 

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 18 of 22
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

19

he has already responded fully and completely, and is not required to provide any 

further explanation.

. Plaintiff received a full and complete answer to Interrogatory No. 10, and while 

he may not like the answer received, he is not entitled to a different one. Scott, 2014 

WL 6685810, at *3. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to Interrogatory 

No. 10 is DENIED.

4. Interrogatory No. 11 

Request, ECF No. 51 p. 40:

Did R. Tellez CDCR No F-83298 3co3 138 up 602 Ms. Barron, and 

S. Escamilla for Refusal to Allow him to move and incitement to 

violence in 2013 provide 602 and results or their log No.

Response, ECF NO. 52-1 p. 27:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that is (sic) 

vague and ambiguous with respect to the term “602 Ms. Barron and 

S. Escamilla for refusal to allow him move (sic) and incitement to 

violence in 2013.” Defendant also objects on the grounds of safety 

and security and the privacy of other inmates. Plaintiff is not 

permitted to have access to grievances, complaints or 

correspondence submitted by other inmates. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 

15, § 3370.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant 

responds that he has no knowledge of any such 602 by inmate 

Tellez (F-83298) against him or Officer Barron.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant does have such knowledge, and that a check of 

Defendant’s personal records would prove this. Defendant once again argues that he 

has already answered completely and fully, and does not owe Plaintiff an additional 

response.

Plaintiff received a full and complete answer to Interrogatory No. 11, and while he 

may not like the answer received he is not entitled to a different one. Scott, 2014 WL 

6685810 at *3. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 

11 is DENIED.

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 19 of 22
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

20

C. Plaintiff’s Request For Additional Interrogatories

Plaintiff once again petitions the court for leave to serve additional 

interrogatories. Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) limits the number of interrogatories a 

party may serve to twenty-five, under Rule 33, a Court may grant leave to serve 

additional interrogatories to the extent consistent with Rules 26(b)(1) and (2). “If a 

particularized showing of the necessity of the discovery is made, a party may request 

additional interrogatories.” Sterr v. Baptista, No. S CIV 08-2307, 2009 WL 1940500, at 

*1 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2009). Here, Plaintiff’s amended motion to compel has again 

failed to indicate how many additional interrogatories he wishes to serve or why. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for additional interrogatories is denied without further leave 

to amend.

D. Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Defendant To Produce Statements And 

Reports Of Witnesses

A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to 

“produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or 

sample” any documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things “in the 

responding party's possession, custody or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).

Along with his amended motion to compel, Plaintiff also submitted to the Court 

what appears to be a new discovery request for the production of documents under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. (ECF No. 61 pp. 31-35.). Plaintiff requests:

“[p]roduction of the documents listed herein, (definition) all electronically stored 

information and tangible things, that are within the scope of Fed. R. C. P. Rule 

26(b). This request is to inspect and copy the requested documents, that are in 

the custody or controle of CDCR and their employee, the Defendant S. Escamilla 

that occur in the normal course of business. For the past 5 years from 1-14-13 

(sic).” (ECF No. 61 pp. 31-32.)

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 20 of 22
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

21

Defendant argues that discovery on this case closed on December 1, 2015, and 

Plaintiff’s request for the production of documents was not served until December 14, 

2015. While the Court did extend the discovery deadline by fourteen days, it was for the 

limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff time to serve his amended motion to compel. (ECF 

No. 56.) The Court will not entertain new discovery requests submitted after discovery 

has closed unless the party making the request can show good cause for why the 

request was not served earlier. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’”) (citing 

Fed. R. Civ. P.16 Advisory Committee’s Note (1983 Amendment)).

In this case, Plaintiff has not shown good cause for only now requesting these

documents. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s request is overbroad and unduly burdensome. 

Plaintiff seems to want to request every document at CDCR pertaining to Defendant 

from the past five years. Requiring Defendant to comply with the request would permit 

Plaintiff to engage in an improper “fishing expedition.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 

1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004). Additionally, Plaintiff has not set forth the relevance of 

these documents. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of documents is 

DENIED.

III. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

Defendant requests that the Court sanction Plaintiff in the amount of the 

attorney’s fees Plaintiff’s amended motion to compel has cost Defendant. He argues

the Plaintiff’s motion to compel was not substantially justified in light of the fact that 

Plaintiff requested responses to questions that Defendant had already answered. (ECF 

No. 62 p. 9.)

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 21 of 22
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

22

As the Court has granted Plaintiff’s motion in part and denied Plaintiff’s 

motion in part, the Court does not believe it is appropriate to impose monetary sanctions 

against Plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s 

request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended motion to compel, ECF No. 61, is 

a. GRANTED as to RFA No. 2, Set 2; No. 18, Set 1; and No. 11, Set 2

b. GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 5

c. DENIED as to all remaining RFAs

d. DENIED as to all remaining Interrogatories

2. Defendant shall provide a further response to these RFAs and Interrogatories 

within fourteen days;

3. Plaintiff shall have fourteen days thereafter to file a further motion to compel, 

if necessary;

4. Plaintiff’s motion requesting additional interrogatories, ECF No. 61, is 

DENIED with prejudice; 

5. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce statements and reports of 

witnesses, ECF No. 61, is DENIED with prejudice.

6. Defendant’s motion to impose sanctions against Plaintiff, ECF No. 62, is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 79 Filed 03/29/16 Page 22 of 22