Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05947/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05947-11/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARVEY L. PRITCHARD, CASE NO. CV-F-02-5947 LJO DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

vs.

[Doc. 48]

F. BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint alleging that

defendants used excessive force during a cell extraction. Defendants filed an answer to plaintiff’s

amended complaint on February 26, 2007 and the court issued an order opening discovery on March 26,

2007. Now pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed October 23, 2007. Defendants

filed an opposition on November 13, 2007.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s motion to compel concerns his request for “policies, directives or instructions to staff

concerning management control status procedures pertaining to cell extractions by Corcoran State Prison

Staff” (Request No. 5) and a copy of the “operational procedures” in effect at Corcoran State Prison in

2001 (Request No. 9). Defendants objected to the requests, arguing that they were overly broad, not

relevant and would jeopardize the security of the prison or the safety of inmates and staff if produced.

Case 1:02-cv-05947-LJO -DLB Document 52 Filed 11/26/07 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

27

28

2

In opposing plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants argue the requests are not relevant because the

question of whether excessive force was used cannot be answered by comparing the events of the cell

extraction to operational and control procedures. Defendants also argue that plaintiff has offered no

argument to counter defendants’ objection that the release of operational and management control

procedures would jeopardize the safety and security of the prison or the safety of inmates or staff.

II. Discussion

Pursuant to Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “any party may serve on any

other party a request to produce and permit the party making the request . . . to inspect and copy any

designated documents . . . which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the

request is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). 

Plaintiff’s request for all operational procedures in effect at Corcoran in 2001 (Request No. 9)

is overly broad and defendants’ objection to this request is therefore sustained. However, when limited

to documents related to policies and procedures for cell extractions at Corcoran State Prison in 2001

(Request No. 5), the Court finds the request is relevant to a claim or defense in this action. See

Fed.R.Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). Whether the information sought wold be admissible evidence at trial is not

the test. Relevant information may be discoverable if it “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 26(b)(1). The Court is cognizant of the important

security issues potentially involved. However, in the Court’s experience, the type of documentation

sought by plaintiff has been supplied in past proceedings. Further, defendants have failed to support

their objection with any detail whatsoever. Accordingly, defendants are ordered to either produce

documents responsive to Request No. 5 or provide further information regarding the safety and security

interests that would be jeopardized by production via the declaration of an appropriate prison official.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of documents, filed October

23, 2007, is GRANTED as to Request No. 5, and DENIED as to Request No. 9 as detailed in the body

of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

Case 1:02-cv-05947-LJO -DLB Document 52 Filed 11/26/07 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

27

28

3

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05947-LJO -DLB Document 52 Filed 11/26/07 Page 3 of 3