Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00573/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00573-13/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. BRODHEIM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-0573 FCD EFB P

vs.

MICHAEL CRY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court are

plaintiff’s motion filed August 4, 2006 seeking a complete set of copies of documents that

defendants filed with the court, a motion plaintiff entitles “motion to compel.” Also before the

court are plaintiff’s motions for sanctions filed July 6, 2006, and September 13, 2006.

In his “motion to compel,” plaintiff claims that defendants, on three occasions, provided

plaintiff with incomplete copies of documents that defendants have filed with the court. This

allegedly includes defendants’ motion for summary judgment in which defendants neglected to

include all of the pages to their Exhibit F. It also includes defendants’ notice of correction filed

four days later, and defendants’ amended Exhibit F filed two days thereafter, each purporting to

include the missing forms. Plaintiff claims that despite defendants’ efforts to correct and amend

their filings, he was still without Attachments A and B to Exhibit F. Defendants have filed

Case 2:02-cv-00573-FCD-KJN Document 182 Filed 03/27/07 Page 1 of 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

2

nothing in opposition to plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, good cause appearing, plaintiff’s

motion is granted and defendants are hereby ordered to serve on plaintiff Attachments A and B

to Exhibit F within seven days from the service of this order.

On July 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking a court order prohibiting defendants “from using as

evidence in this case information which they have now disclosed in their motion for summary

judgment but which they did not provide to plaintiff as required by Rule 26(e)(2).” Rule

37(c)(1) provides in relevant part, “[a] party that without substantial justification fails to disclose

information required by ... Rule 26(e)(2), is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use

as evidence at a trial, at a hearing, or on a motion any ... information not so disclosed” [emphasis

added]. Plaintiff states that defendants ultimately provided him with the information upon filing

their motion for summary judgment. That plaintiff was ultimately provided with the discovery

he seeks and can show no prejudice flowing from the delay in its delivery is the very essence of

a harmless failure to comply with Rule 26(e)(2). Plaintiff’s motion is without merit and is

therefore denied.

On August 22, 2006, plaintiff filed another motion for sanctions for the alleged

intimidation of plaintiff’s witness, together with a request for an evidentiary hearing in order to

determine the extent of the alleged violation. On September 13, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended

motion for sanctions, superseding the previous motion, yet containing the same allegations. 

Plaintiff contends in his motion that, on August 10, 2006, his witness, Aaron P. Martin, a fellow

inmate, informed him that B.C.Williams, the Litigation Coordinator for the California Medical

Facility where plaintiff is housed, sought to verify the witness’ signature. Mr. Martin did as

requested. The following day, B.C. Williams visited Mr. Martin’s work site and put him on the

telephone with defense counsel in this matter. Defense counsel questioned Mr. Martin regarding

his signature verification and asked him to sign another document attesting to the authenticity of

the signature in question. Mr. Martin complied. Defense counsel then questioned Mr. Martin

Case 2:02-cv-00573-FCD-KJN Document 182 Filed 03/27/07 Page 2 of 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

3

about the contents of his declaration. Mr. Martin later informed plaintiff that he felt intimidated

by defense counsel and that he had no choice but to respond to her questioning. Plaintiff claims

that the actions undertaken by defense counsel in this controversy were improper and unethical. 

Nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure precludes the questioning of witnesses

by opposing counsel at any time prior to trial. To the extent that plaintiff claims defense counsel

intimidated his witness, he has failed to demonstrate that any intimidation occurred beyond the

ordinary uneasiness one may feel in being questioned regarding one’s statements. The witness

in question is neither a retained consultant or expert. Rather, he purports to be a percipient

witness over a matter in controversy. There is nothing inappropriate with defense counsel

interviewing, or having interviewed, a fact witness about the contents of his declaration or any

other matter material to issues anticipated for trial. Plaintiff’s motion is without merit and

therefore denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 4, 2006, “motion to compel” is granted;

2. Defendants shall produce and serve on plaintiff the discovery requested in plaintiff’s

motion to compel, or show cause why that they can not comply, within seven days of the date

this order is served;

 3. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions filed July 6, 2006, is denied; and

4. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions filed on September 13, 2006, is denied. 

Dated: March 27, 2007

Case 2:02-cv-00573-FCD-KJN Document 182 Filed 03/27/07 Page 3 of 3