Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01186/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01186-4/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

RENE ARROYO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. ADAMS et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS TO COMPEL

ORDER STAYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 30, 32, 33, 35, 51, & 54)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Rene Arroyo (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action. Plaintiff is proceeding on his original complaint, filed, July 19, 2011.

Pursuant to the Court’s March 5, 2012, order, this action is proceeding on the following 

cognizable claims: (1) violation of the Fourth Amendment against Defendant Adams; (2) 

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Adams; (3) violation of the Eighth 

Amendment base on the use of excessive force against Defendants Schneider, Carter, Matthews 

and Leon; (4) violation of the Eighth Amendment based on conditions of confinement against 

Defendants Hubach, Matthews and Leon; (5) violation of the right to privacy under the 

California Constitution against Defendant Adams; (6) unreasonable search in violation of Article 

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 1 of 18
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

I, Section 13 of the California Constitution against Defendant Adams; and (7) use of excessive 

force in violation of Article I, Section 17 of the California Constitution against Defendants 

Schneider, Carter, Matthews and Leon. The discovery cut-off date was May 10, 2013.

On March 1 , 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to requests for 

admissions (“RFAs”), Set 1. (ECF No. 30.) On March 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed three separate 

motions to compel further disclosure to Plaintiff’s demand for the production of documents

(“PODs”). (ECF Nos. 32, 33, 34.) On March 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further 

responses to RFAs, Set 2. Defendants opposed the motions on August 26, 2013.1 On September 

30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 50.) The motions are now deemed submitted 

pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

II. MOTION TO COMPEL LEGAL STANDARD

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

claim or defense of any party . . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the 

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Defendants are required to “furnish such information as is available” to him 

in responding to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, and documents which are in his “possession, custody 

or control” in responding to Plaintiff’s request for the production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(a), 34(a). If Defendant objects to one of Plaintiff’s discovery requests, it is Plaintiff’s burden 

to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. Plaintiff must inform the court which 

discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, 

inform the Court why the information sought is relevant and why Defendant’s objections are not 

justified. 

///

///

 

1 Contrary to the Court’s previous order, Defendants failed to oppose Plaintiff’s motion for further responses to 

Plaintiff’s RFAs, Set 2, filed on March 28. 2013. (ECF No. 36.) As such, the Court will not address this motion and 

will order Defendants to oppose the motion.

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 2 of 18
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

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions

1. Legal Standard

“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). 

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 

with other forms of discovery, it is well established that boilerplate objections do not suffice, 

e.g., Thompson v. Yates, No. 1:06-cv-00763-RCC, 2011 WL 5975469, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 

29, 2011); Everest Indem. Ins. Co. v. Aventine-Tramonti Homeowners Assoc., No. 2:09-cv-1672-

RCJ-RJJ, 2011 WL 3841083, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 29, 2011); Palladini v. City of Milpitas, No. 

CV 06-00779 JW (HRL), 2008 WL 1774090, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2008); Medina v. U.P.S., 

No. C-06-791 JW PVT, 2007 WL 2123699, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 23, 2007); Eastridge Personnel 

of Las Vegas, Inc. v. Du-Orpilla, No. 2:06-cv-00776-KJD-PAL, 2007 WL 1232229, at *2 (D. 

Nev. Apr. 26, 2007); A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 237 F.R.D. 250, 255 (C.D. Cal. 

2006).

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 

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 3 of 18
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

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 must be served.” Id. 

Efforts to obstruct discovery through objections or evasive responses which lack any good faith 

basis will not be condoned. Marchand v. Mercy Med. Cntr., 22 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 1994); In 

re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, No. M 07-1827 SI, 2011 WL 3566419, at *5 

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011); Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *1.

2. Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions—Set 1

Plaintiff seeks further responses from Defendants Leon to Request for Admissions, Set

One, Requests No. 8, 9, 13, 28-44, 46-48, 73-74, 77-83, 85, 89, and 92. Plaintiff seeks further

responses from Defendant Hubach, Carter, Schneider, and Mathews as to Requests No. 8, 9, 13,

27-54, 73-74, 77-81, 82, 83, 85, 89, and 92. Plaintiff argues Defendants’ objections are not

complete and straightforward answers, or that they are not answered in one of three ways. 

Defendants argue that they properly responded to these requests for admissions by admitting, 

denying, or objecting, and that Plaintiff fails to state his specific objections to the disputed 

responses. 

RFA 8: “Admit or deny on or about March 5, 2008 thru[sic] march 17, 2008 you were 

familiar with both state and federal law prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Response: Defendants objected that this request is vague, immaterial, and not reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further respond that their 

objections are well taken because there are no such claims against these Defendants.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel an amended answer is granted.

Defendants’ contention that that the request is vague immaterial, and not reasonable 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibile evidence lacks merit. Moreover, the fact that 

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 4 of 18
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

there are no such claims for unreasonable searches and seizures against these particular 

defendants is insignificant. Plaintiff is proceeding against Defendant Adams for both state and 

federal claims of unreasonable searches and “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any 

party’s claim or defense . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.l 26(b)(1).

RFA 9: “Admit or deny that you are capable to determine the difference between 

reasonable and unreasonable searches and siezures being enforced.”

Response: Defendants’ response is identical to that of the RFA 8, above.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel an amended answer is granted.

RFA 13: “Admit or deny on or about March 15, 2008 thru[sic] March 17, 2008 you were 

and still are familiar with the Rules and Regulations of the C.C.R. 15 §

3052(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h) Health and Safety Standards.”

Response: Defendants objected that the request is immaterial to the matters at issue, is 

irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as the 

cited sections refer to kitchens and food handling.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel an amended answer is denied.

Defendants properly objected to this RFA. Plaintiff’only claim relating to food is that 

was denied food on March 15, 2008. Thus, knowledge of prison kitchens and food handlings is 

immaterial to the matters at issue, is irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. 

RFAs 28-40: Plaintiff requests admissions based on defendant’ knowledge of the 

California Penal Code on issues regarding filing false reports, false statements under oath, 

offering altered or forged documents, falsifying documents to be used as evidence, destroying or 

concealing evidence, planting, altering or concealing physical evidence, inhumane treatment or 

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 5 of 18
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

oppression of a prisoner, falsely reporting a crime, altering entries in books and records, cruel 

and unusual punishment under the California Penal Code, civil rights and enumerations of rights, 

and Article 13 of the California Constitution.

Response: Defendants objects to Plaintiff’s requests numbered 28 through 40 on the 

grounds that they are irrelevant to the matters at issue, requests based on claims that were 

dismissed pursuant to the screening order, and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel an amended answer is denied.

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to inform the Court why the information sought is 

relevant and why Defendant’s objections are not justified. Plaintiff’s motion to compel simply 

states that the requests are relevant and gives no further explanation. Moreover, the Court finds 

that Plaintiff’s requests are irrelevant because the claims for violations of the California Penal 

Code were dismissed in the Court’s screening order.

RFAs 42-44: Plaintiff requests admissions regarding whether Defendants’ have had 

previous 602 inmate complaints filed against them for misconduct. 

Response: Defendants objected on the grounds that they are vague as to time, overly 

broad, immaterial to the matters at issue, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of evidence. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel an amended answer is partially granted.

Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad in that the fails to state a time period for the admissions 

requested. However, the information requested would be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. 

Accordingly, the Court will modify Plaintiff’s requests. Defendants are to amend their reponses 

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 6 of 18
7

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

to reflect 602 inmate complaints filed against them specifically for excessive force against 

prisoners or unreasonable searches for during the time period of March 1, 2007 to Mach 1, 2009.

RFAs 46-48: Plaintiff seeks information regarding any lawsuits filed against defendants 

for employee misconduct, excessive force against prisoners, and unreasonable unclothed body 

searches and/or strip searches. 

Reponse: Defendants objected that these requests are vague as to time and type of 

alleged lawsuit, are overly broad, are immaterial to the matters at issue, and are not reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s request for furher admission is partially granted.

Plaintiff’s request for all civil rights causes of action cases is overly broad. Additionally, 

the Court is aware that a defendant may not be aware that a suit has been filed against them in 

Federal Court. In a federal prisoner civil rights action, the defendant is not served until after the 

complaint is screened and cognizable claims are found. Accordingly, the Court will order that 

Defendants respond to the request by providing the information requested on all cases alleging 

excessive force and/or unreasonable searches and seizures in which they have been served as a 

defendant.

RFAs 49-54: Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants Hubach, Carter, Scheider, and 

Matthews to give further responses regarding CDCR policy and practice.

Response: Defendants reply that they properly resonded to each request and that no 

further response is indicated.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s request for further admission is denied. Defendants responded to 

Plaintiff’s requests and he must accept their answers.

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 7 of 18
8

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

RFAs 73-74: Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses regarding the custom, practice, 

or procedure at CSP for conducing an unclothed body search.

Response: Defendants objected that the requests are not a plain statement of fact and that 

they are compound.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s request for further admission is granted.

Although Plaintiff’s requests are lengthy, they are not compound because they are simply 

asking whether the described actions reflect CSP’s policy regarding unclothed body searches. 

Defendants may qualify their answer, if necessary, and deny or admit only part of the response. 

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

RFAs 77-81: Plaintiff seeks to compel further admission regarding CSP policy and 

procedure on unclothed body searches in the view of female officers.

Response: Defendants objected to each request as repetitive, vague, and overlybroad. 

Without waiving objections, Defendants answered the requests to the extent they could and 

denied the remainder of the requests. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s request for further admission is denied. Defendants responded to 

Plaintiff’s requests and he must accept their answers.

RFAs 82-83: Plaintiff seeks further admission regarding “female pedestrian civilians” 

who work in “these facility buildings.”

Response: Defendants objected on the grounds that tthse two terms are vague and 

ambiguous, and that without further information, they could not answer the questions as framed. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s request for further admissions is denied.

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 8 of 18
9

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

Plaintiff’s requests are vague as to the terms “female pedestrian civilian” and “these 

facility buildings.” The Court is unable to determine the nature of Plaintiff’s request and they 

are therefore denied as vague.

RFA 85: “Admit or nedy that on or prior to March 15, 2008 the 4B yard recreation cages 

were in plain view of the entire 4B yard facility.”

Response: Defendants objected that the request was vague as to which recreation 

modules and then responded that some of the modules rae visible, some are not visible, and that 

most of the modules are not completely visible.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s request for further admission is denied. Defendants responded to 

Plaintiff’s requests and he must accept their answers.

RFA 92: Plaintiff requests further admission regarding Defendants familiarity with 

California Penal Code section 5421(b), “designation and compensation of woman to have charge 

of female prisoners-entry into cell of prisoners and opposite sex.”

Response: Defendants objected on the grounds that Plaintiff’s request is unintelligible 

and that they could not admit or deny the request because they could not determine what was 

being asked. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s request for further admission is denied. 

As previously discussed, claims regarding penal code violations were previously 

dismissed from this action and are not relevant to the claims proceeding. 

B. Request for Production of Documents

1. Legal Standard

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 the 

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 9 of 18
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

following items in the responding party’s possession, custody or control: any designated 

documents or tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) (quotation marks omitted). “Property is 

deemed within a party’s ‘possession, custody, or control’ if the party has actual possession, 

custody, or control thereof or the legal right to obtain the property on demand.” Allen v. 

Woodford, No. CV-F-05-1104 OWW LJO, 2007 WL 309945, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007) 

(citing In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995)); accord Bovarie v. 

Schwarzenegger, No. 08cv1661 LAB (NLS), 2011 WL 719206, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011); 

Evans v. Tilton, No. 1:07CV01814 DLB PC, 2010 WL 1136216, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010). 

In responding to discovery requests, a reasonable inquiry must be made, and if no 

responsive documents or tangible things exist, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1), the responding party 

should so state with sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the party made 

a reasonable inquiry and exercised due diligence, Uribe v. McKesson, No. 08cv1285 DMS 

(NLS), 2010 WL 892093, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2010). If responsive documents do exist but 

the responsive party claims lack of possession, control, or custody, the party must so state with 

sufficient specificity to allow the Court (1) to conclude that the responses were made after a 

case-specific evaluation and (2) to evaluate the merit of that response. Ochotorena v. Adams, 

No. 1:05-cv-01525-LJO-DLB (PC), 2010 WL 1035774, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010). As 

with previously discussed forms of discovery, boilerplate objections do not suffice. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 34(b)(2)(B), (C); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 408 F.3d at 1149. 

2. Set 1

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendants to produce documents responsive to requests 1, 3-

8, and 12-15.

POD 1: “All documents that refer to allegations of misconduct or other improper conduct 

by prison staff involving all named defendants, whether such allegations were made by an 

inmate or by a member of the prison staff, during relevant time period, per Departmental 

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 10 of 18
11

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

Operations Manual (D.O.M. § 54100.25.5, § 54100.25.6, §54100.25.7; also pursuant to P.C. 

832.5(a); Evidence Code §§ 1043-1046, Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 34.”

Response: Defendants objected on the grounds that the request was vague as to what 

type of misconduct or imporper conduct, vague ast to relelvant time period, overly broad, is 

irrelevant and not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, unduly 

burdensome and oppressive because the amount of work required substantially outweights any 

benefit, and that the request violates California Penal Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3321. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part.

Other than the limited exception discussed below, Plaintiff has not demonstrated how this

information is relevant. Plaintiff is proceeding on claims for excessive force, in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment, an unreasonable search, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and related 

state law claims. Plaintiff’s request is overbroad as to time frame and type of conduct and/or 

disciplinary action, but notwithstanding those deficiencies, the relevance of Defendants’ general 

conduct and/or disciplinary histories is unclear given the nature of Plaintiff’s legal claim. 

Defendants are ordered to produce documents related to excessive force or unreasonable 

searches by defendants during the releavant time period of March 1, 2007 to Mach 1, 2009.

POD 3-4: Plaintiff requests the “excessive use of force tape conducted by the sergeant” 

from March 15, 2008 through March 17, 2008 and any videotapes interviews of prisoners that 

were involved or witnessed the incident. 

Response: Defendants objected on the grounds that under state law they cannot provide 

information regarding other inmates to a prisoner. Defendants contend that Plaintiff had an 

opportunity to view his own extraction video, and that should the matter proceded to trial, a copy 

of the video will be available for his use at trial.

Ruling: The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel, in part.

Plaintiff has not met his burden to show the relevance of other prisoner’s extraction 

videos or prisoner interviews related to other inmates’ cell extractions. Defendants are ordered 

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 11 of 18
12

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

to produce any prisoner video interviews related to witnessing Plaintiff’s cell extraction. 

Plaintiff was able to review his extraction video and should this matter proceed to trial, 

Defendants must provide Plaintiff with a copy of the video.

POD 5-6: Plaintiff requests documents related to CDCR and Corcoran State Prison use 

of force policy and procedure for the relevant time period of January 2005 through January 2009. 

Response: Defendants objected on the grounds that the requests are vague as to time and 

what types of force and on the grounds that the documents are deemed confidential by CDCR 

because their release would threatened the safety and security of the institution. Without 

waiving objections, Defendants produced portions of the Caliornia Code of Regulations, title 15, 

related to security, disorder and emergencies, and operational prodcedure discussing yard recall 

and the use of force. 

Ruling: Boiler plate assertions of privilege will not suffice to assert a privilege, however 

failure to produce a privilege log within the time line required to respond to the request for 

production does not waive the privilege. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 408 F.3d 

1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). Additionally, the District Court has wide latitude in controlling 

discovery. In re State of Arizona, 528 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2008); Burlington Northern, 408 

F.3d at 1147. While Plaintiff argues that the documents requested are clearly not privileged, the 

Court is mindful of the fact that some of the documents responsive to this request may in fact 

contain information that, if turned over to an inmate, could seriously jeopardize the safety and 

security of both inmates and personnel within the institution. Not wanting any untoward 

consequences to result from procedural ineptitude and, realizing the shared interests that arise 

since Defendants are CDCR employees, CDCR and Defendants are ordered to work together to 

locate documents responsive to Plaintiff’s request. They shall redact any confidential 

information. Plaintiff’s request is vague and over broad as he fails to specify a relevant time 

period. Defendants are ordered to produce any responsive documents that were in effect in 

March 2008.

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 12 of 18
13

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

POD 7-8: Plailntiff seeks documents from Plaintiff’s 114A1 folder, the isolation 

segregation record, and 114.A1 folder, the inmate segregation profile.

Response: Defendants objected on the grounds that it was vague as to time, institution, 

and facility, is overly broad, immaterial to the matters at issue, and not reasonably calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waitving objections, Defendants

responded that the documents are contained in Plaintiff’s central file, which is available for 

inspection and copying pursuant to institutional policies and procedures. 

Ruling: These documents appear to be relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. However, Plaintiff’s request is overly broad as it goes beyond 

the time of the alleged deprivations contained in the complaint. Accordingly, the Court will 

narrow the request. Defendants are ordered to produce any responsive documents, relating to 

Plaintiff, created from March 1, 2008 to March 31, 2008.

POD 12-13: Plaintiff seeks documents and/or photographs that refer or relate to the use 

of force incident against Plaintiff for the relevant time period of March 15, 2008 through March 

17, 2008.

Response: Defendants object on the grounds that documents responsive to this request, if 

they exist, are maintained in Plaintiff’s central file and are available to him pursuant to 

institutional policies and procedures. Defendants also objected on the grounds that information 

regarding other inmates is prevleged under state law. Without waiving objections, Defendants 

reiterate that a video of Plaintiff’s cell extractin will be made available for Plaintiff to view.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s request for the production of documents is granted, in part. 

As discussed in detail above, Defendants’ mere assertion of privledge is not a sufficient 

objection to Plaintiff’s request. Documents and photographs related to the use of force against 

Plaintiff during the time period of March 15, 2008 to March 17, 2008 are clearly relevant to this 

action. Defendants are ordered to produce 

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 13 of 18
14

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

POD 14: Plaintiff requests videotape interivews of prisonsers accusing defendants of 

excessive use of force assault, and/or battery. 

Response: Defendants objected on the grounds that Plaintiff’s request is vague as to what 

type of force, vague as to time, overly, broad, is irrelevant and not reasonable calculated to lead 

to the discovery of admissible evidence, unduly burdenson, and violates California Code of 

Regulations, title 15, section 3321. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Videotapes of other prisoners are not 

relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.

POD 15: Plaintiff seeks “all recommendation records/reports by either the Assistant

Warden, Warden, or Facility Captain, of all prisoner interviews of excessive uses of force arising 

from any Defendants’ actions, including, but not limited to the ‘Report of findings, per to 

Evidence Codes §§§ 1271, 155.1., 1553, 1562, Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 34.’”

Response: Defendants objected on the grounds that it is vague as to what type of report, 

what type of force, ast to time, is overly broad, is irrelevant and not reasonable calculated to lead 

to the discovery of admissible evidence, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and violates 

California Regulations, title 15, section 3321

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted, in part.

Although Plaintiff’s request is overly broad, the Court will narrow Plaintiff’s request. 

Defendants are ordered to produce responsive documents during the relevant time period of 

March 1, 2007 to March 1, 2009. 

3. Sets 2 and 3

Plaintiff seeks to compel production of documents to his requests numbers 16-33 and 35-

40 from set two. Plaintiff seeks to compel production of documents to his requests numbers 41-

63 from set three. Plaintiff states that although Defendants have indicated that the documents 

requested are not in their possession, custody, or control, they are nonetheless required to obtain 

the documents and provide them to Plaintiff. 

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 14 of 18
15

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

In responding to discovery requests, Defendants must produce documents which are in 

their “possession, custody or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Actual possession, custody or 

control is not required, however. “A party may be ordered to produce a document in the 

possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has 

control over the entity who is in possession of the document. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 

F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995). As this Court explained in Allen v. Woodford, 2007, U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 11026, *4-6, 2007 WL 309945, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007) (internal citations and 

quotations omitted):

Property is deemed within a party’s possession, custody, or control if the party 

has actual possession, custody, or control thereof or the legal right to obtain the 

property on demand. A party having actual possession of documents must allow 

discovery even if the documents belong to someone else; legal ownership of the 

documents is not determinative. Control need not be actual control; courts 

construe it broadly as the legal right to obtain documents upon demand. Legal 

right is evaluated in the context of the facts of each case. The determination of 

control is often fact specific. Central to each case is the relationship between the 

party and the person or entity having actual possession of the document. The 

requisite relationship is one where a party can order the person or entity in actual 

possession of the documents to release them. This position of control is usually 

the result of statute, affiliation or employment. Control may be established by the 

existence of a principal-agent relationship.

Here, Defendants attempt to avoid production by contending that they are not in 

possession, custody or control of the requested documents. The specific facts of this action, 

however, render such an objection unfounded. By virtue of their employment with non-party 

CDCR, individual Defendants are represented by the Attorney General’s Office. It is this 

Court’s experience that either individual defendants who are employed by CDCR and/or the 

Attorney General can generally obtain documents, such as the ones at issue here, from CDCR by 

requesting them. If this is the case, then, based on their relationship with CDCR, they have 

constructive control over the requested documents and the documents must be produced. See, 

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 15 of 18
16

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

eg., Mitchell v. Adams, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24289, * 24-25, 2009 WL 674348, *9 (E.D. Cal. 

Mar. 6, 2009) (even though defendant warden was sued in his individual capacity, he had 

constructive control over requested documents because he had authority to obtain the requested 

documents from third party CDCR); see also Gray v. Faulkner, 148 F.R.D. 220, 223-224 (N.D. 

Ind.1992) (requiring certification that responding party “have conducted a search for the 

information reasonably available to them through their agents, attorneys, or others subject to 

their control and have determined that the information requested either does not exist or that it 

has been produced.”)

If Defendant chooses to stand on this objection, he must provide factual support for the 

assertion that, in spite of his relationship to CDCR, he does not have possession, custody or 

control of the requested documents. Defendant should also be mindful of the fact that he will be 

precluded from using the requested documents, or any documents of this kind, as evidence in 

support of summary judgment, in opposition to any of Plaintiff’s positions, and in any way 

during trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Should Defendant stand on this objection and 

subsequently seek to use the requested documents or like documents, he must, at minimum, 

supplement his responses, and explain the method by which he obtained the documents. Most 

importantly, he will also be required to demonstrate that the prior objection was taken in good 

faith given that he now has and seeks to use the requested documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents

to Sets two and three. Defendants are ordered to provide either the documents requested or 

further responses withing thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

VI. SANCTIONS

Plaintiff seeks sanctions for his motions to compel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

37. Rule 37(a)(4) permits plaintiff to seek an award of reasonable expenses incurred in filing his 

motion, if his motion is granted in whole or in part, or if the discovery sought is served after the 

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 16 of 18
17

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

motion is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The court may decline to award such expenses where 

the movant failed to make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute without court intervention, 

where the opposing party’s position was substantially justified, or where other circumstances 

make the award unjust. Id. Rule 37(d) permits plaintiff to seek sanctions for the complete 

failure to respond to interrogatories and requests for the production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(d). Such a motion must be accompanied by a certification that the movant made a good 

faith effort to resolve the dispute without court intervention. Id. 

With respect to Rule 37(a)(4), plaintiff’s motion to compel was granted in part but it was 

also denied in part. As a result, and given that plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the expenses 

incurred by defendants in opposing the motion undoubtably outweigh the expenses incurred by 

plaintiff in filing the motions to compel. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions for 

sanctions. 

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions, filed 

March 1, 2013, is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

a. Plaintiff’s RFAs 8, 9, 42-44, 46-48, and 73-74, Set 1, are granted;

b. Plaintiff’s RFAs 13, 28-40, 49-54, 77-81, 82-83, 85, and 92 are DENIED; 

c. Defendants shall respond further to the RFAs withiht thirty (30) days from 

the date of service of this order;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents, Set 1, is granted in part, 

subject to the Court’s narrowing of Plaintiff’s requests above, and denied in part as follows,:

a. Plaintiff’s PODs 1, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 12-13, and 15 are GRANTED;

b. Plaintiff’s POD 14, is DENIED;

c. Defendants are ordered to provide either the documents requested or 

further responses withing thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order;

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 17 of 18
18

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. Plailntiff’s motions to compel production of documents, Sets 2 and 3, are 

GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to provide either the documents requested or further 

responses withing thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order;

4. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 is 

DENIED;

5. Defendants are ordered to oppose Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses 

to Plaintiff’s request for admissions, Set 2 (ECF No. 36), within twenty-one (21) days from the 

date of service of this order;

6. Plaintiff’s motion to stay the summary judgment proceeding, filed September 30, 

2013, is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is stayed pending the 

resolution of discovery matters; and

7. Defendants’ motion to supplement their motion for summary judgment, filed 

October 10, 2013, is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/10/14 Page 18 of 18