Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01404/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01404-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Samuels
Defendant
Jesse Washington
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Plaintiff Jesse Washington is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action is proceeding against Defendant R. Samuels for retaliation in violation of the First 

Amendment.

On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Defendant Samuels filed an

opposition on May 15, 2015, and Plaintiff filed a reply on May 29, 2015. In accordance with the 

Court‟s June 2, 2015, order, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff‟s reply on June 17, 2015. (ECF 

No. 44.) 

//

//

//

JESSE WASHINGTON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. SAMUELS, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01404-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

[ECF Nos. 37, 39]

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 45 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of 

confinement. As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would 

otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to 

involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 29, Discovery and Scheduling Order, &5. Further, where 

otherwise discoverable information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or 

infringe upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in 

determining whether disclosure should occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. 

Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (privacy rights or interests implicit in broad purpose and 

language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of 

Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing assertion of privilege); Soto v. City of 

Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a constitutionally-based right of privacy 

that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB PC, 2012 

WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting inmate=s entitlement to inspect discoverable 

information may be accommodated in ways which mitigate institutional safety concerns); Robinson v. 

Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012) 

(issuing protective order regarding documents containing information which implicated the safety and 

security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. 

Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for protective order and for redaction of information asserted to 

risk jeopardizing safety and security of inmates or the institution if released); Womack v. Virga, No. 

CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (requiring 

defendants to submit withheld documents for in camera review or move for a protective order). 

However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The 

discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of 

discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 45 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties may obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged 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) (quotation marks omitted). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial 

if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

(quotation marks omitted).

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. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV 

S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at 

*3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); 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 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, 

2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4. 

However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these 

procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigation; therefore, to the extent possible, the 

Court endeavors to resolve his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 

606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 

2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 

B. Motion to Compel

1. Request for Production of Documents 

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 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). AProperty 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 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 45 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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. 

a. Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents No. 2

“Any and All documentation relevant to Defendant‟s R. Samuels‟ Post Job Order from October 

20, 2010 thru August 2011, while he was employed as Correctional Officer at Facility „B‟, Kern 

Valley State Prison (KVSP).”

b. Defendant Samuels Initial Response:

Defendant Samuels objects to Request No. 2 on the grounds that it is overbroad, burdensome, 

and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information 

that is deemed confidential under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3321, the disclosure of which could: (1) 

endanger the safety of other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or: (2) jeopardize the security of the 

institution. Additionally, the production of confidential information is improper on the grounds that an 

inmate shall not have access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 

3370(d). For these reasons, Defendant Samuels shall not produce documents responsive to this 

request. 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 45 Filed 06/18/15 Page 4 of 6
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving these objections, Defendant Samuels 

produces the applicable Post Order in effect for Search and Escort Officers at Kern Valley State Prison 

during the requested period, bates stamped as AG POS – 5- 7. 

c. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Response

Plaintiff seeks a further response as to Defendant Samuels‟ Post Job Order for the three days he 

was assigned to KVSP, Facility B Building No. 7 during the day of incident on January 17, 2011, and 

his continued assignment on January 24 and 31, 2011.

d. Defendant’s Response

Defendant submits that the request is unduly overbroad, burdensome, and not calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that it seeks any and all documentation relevant to 

Defendant Samuels‟ Post Job Order for the requested period, which could be interpreted to include 

documents containing information concerning all policies, procedures, and practices related to the 

composition and approval of the relevant Post Order, rather than limiting the request to Defendant 

Samuels‟ actual Post Order for the requested period, October 20, 2010, through August 2011. 

This Request, interpreted broadly, could also be read as seeking documents which raise the 

issue of confidentiality under Cal. Code Regs. tit., § 3321, the disclosure of which could: (1) endanger 

the safety of other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security of the institution. 

Additionally, the production of confidential information is improper on the grounds that an inmate 

shall not have access to information designated confidential. Cal Code. Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d).

Notwithstanding these objections, Defendant Samuels interpreted Plaintiff‟s request as seeking 

the Post Order applicable to his position as Kern Valley State Prison Search and Escort Officer for the 

period between October 20, 2010, and August, 2011. In response Defendant Samuels provided a 

redacted copy of this exact document: the Post Order applicable to Kern Valley State Prison Search 

and Escort Officers during the requested period. (Exhibit A.) As the objections asserted by Samuels 

are valid, and Samuels submitted a good faith response to this Request for Production of Documents 

which complied with Plaintiff‟s request to this Request for Production of Documents, the Court should 

deny Plaintiff‟s motion to compel a further response to Request for Production Number 2. 

//

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 45 Filed 06/18/15 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e. Defendant’s Supplemental Response

Upon review of Plaintiff‟s reply, an additional search was made to determine whether there 

existed any additional or temporary Post Orders applicable to Defendant Samuels for the dates cited in 

Plaintiff‟s reply: January 17th, 24th, or 31st, 2011. As a result of this search, it was determined that on 

January 24th and 31st, 2011, Defendant Samuels served as a Floor Officer, as opposed to his usual 

position as Search and Escort Officer. On June 17, 2015, Defendant Samuels served Plaintiff with a 

supplemental response to the relevant discovery request which included copies of the Post Orders 

applicable to those temporary assignments. (ECF No. 44.) 

f. Ruling

In light of Defendant‟s initial and supplemental responses, Plaintiff‟s motion to compel a 

further response shall be denied. Defendant initially interpreted Plaintiff‟s request as seeking the Post 

Order applicable to Defendant‟s position as Kern Valley State Prison Search and Escort Officer for the 

period between October 20, 2010, and August 2011, which Defendants provided. Upon further review 

and clarification, Defendant has now provided a supplemental response to Plaintiff‟s request for the 

job assignments on January 24th and January 31st, 2011, which includes copies of the Post Orders 

applicable to those temporary assignments. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s motion to compel a further 

response shall be DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 45 Filed 06/18/15 Page 6 of 6