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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

Mr. MEYERS et. al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5680RBL

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S PENDING

MOTIONS PENDING MOTIONS, 

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Before the court are four motions filed by plaintiff:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to delay consideration of summary judgment (Dkt. # 144).

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, for a protective order, and for sanctions (Dkt.

# 147).

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to defendant’s motion for

summary judgment (Dkt. # 148).

4. Plaintiff’s second motion to compel discovery, for a protective order, and for

sanctions (Dkt # 149).

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 157 Filed 07/10/07 Page 1 of 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

ORDER - 2

A. Motion to delay consideration.

On July 3, 2007, plaintiff filed his response (Dkt. # 152 and 155). The court has given

defendant until July 27, 2007, to file a reply (Dkt. # 156). This motion appears moot.

B. Motion to compel discovery.

The issue remaining in this action is whether the telephone system available to plaintiff meets

constitutionally acceptable minimums. Plaintiff seeks to force the defendant, a federal employee, to

provide eleven items in one request served on March 8, 2007. See, (Dkt. # 147, page 2). Each item

will be addressed separately.

1. A copy of the “ACA” standards. 

Meeting ACA standards is not the issue in this action. The issue is whether the telephone

system available to plaintiff meets the constitutionally required minimum. Further, ACA standards

cover many areas and not just telephone access. Thus, the request is overly broad and unduly

burdensome. Defendant’s objection is well taken.

2. A full and complete copy of the Washington State Administrative Code, WAC’s.

Plaintiff fails to show any portion of the WAC’s are in any way applicable to this action. The

code contains volumes of information completely irrelevant to this action. The request is overly

broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant’s objection is well taken.

3. The address for the “ACA.”

Plaintiff fails to show this information is related to the issues in this case, or that defendant

Melendez has this information.

4. A complete copy fo the “ICE” detention standards.

Plaintiff does not need a complete copy of the document. The only possible relevant section

would deal with access to a telephone. Plaintiff’s request is therefore overly broad and unduly

burdensome. Defendants objection is well taken.

5. A copy of all “PATN’s” under 2.4.17 of “COW” 4-2-0122 of a telephone contract.

Plaintiff does not define what a “PATN” or “COW” is in his motion (Dkt. # 147). The court

is not in a position to determine the relevance or burden of this request. Plaintiff has the burden of

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 157 Filed 07/10/07 Page 2 of 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

ORDER - 3

proving he is entitled to a motion to compel. Plaintiff does not tell the court why this information is

needed or how this information relates to his request for injunctive relief. 

In responding to this request defendants assume the plaintiff is referring to “private attorney

telephone numbers.” Defendant provides a list of free call telephone numbers available to plaintiff

(Dkt. # 144, Exhibit A, page 3). Plaintiff fails to show why this response is not adequate.

6. A complete copy of section “J” of a contract. 

Plaintiff states he received a copy of the contract through discovery but that section “J” was

missing. Defendant Melendez implies the entire contract was previously provided to plaintiff (Dkt. #

146, page 2). Defendant should ascertain if plaintiff has access to this section of this contract. If

plaintiff was not provided a copy of the document defendant Melendez should be provided the

document or objections to disclosure of this section of the contract should be served on plaintiff.

7. A list of all numbers blocked as legal calls.

Plaintiff fails to show this information is relevant to his claim that the telephone service

available to him is in any way inadequate. The numbers requested would in many cases not be

relevant to plaintiff. As worded the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendants

objection is well taken.

8 and 9. A copy of the Tariffs filed with the State of Washington Utilities Commission

and the FCC.

Plaintiff fails to show why this information is relevant to the action or that defendant

Melendez has this information. The issue in this case is the adequacy of the phone system. The

defendant’s response to this request states:

Objection. Defendant does not have possession, custody or control of any documents

responsive to this request. Moreover, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead

to production of admissible evidence. The Tariff has nothing to do with the NWDC

telephone access policy and its impact on Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. This request

seeks information outside the scope of discovery.

(Dkt. # 144, Exhibit A, page 12).

In response to plaintiff’s motion defendant Melendez argues:

There are only two issues on summary judgment: (1) whether the limitations on

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 157 Filed 07/10/07 Page 3 of 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

ORDER - 4

Plaintiff’s telephone access are reasonable in the face of legitimate security interests at

the NWDC; and (2) whether Plaintiff’s right to access the courts has been violated

because of the NWDC’s procedures for and availability of confidential

communications (Dkt. #141). The discovery Plaintiff is seeking to compel is not

relevant and is not required for Plaintiff to respond to the pending Motion for

Summary Judgment.

For example, Plaintiff seeks a copy of the American Correctional Association

Standards, the Washington Administrative Code; and the Tariffs filed with the State

of Washington Utilities Commission and the Federal Communications Commission.

These requests are overly burdensome and not required for Plaintiff to respond to the

pending motion. Rather, Plaintiff may contradict the Motion for Summary Judgment

by affidavit or other evidence as allowed by Fed.Rule.Civ.Pro. 56(c).

(Dkt. # 146, page 4). The court agrees that this discovery seeks information far beyond the scope of

this litigation and that the request is overly burdensome. 

10. A copy of all bids to provide the telephone services at NWDC.

The issue in this case is not who bid to provide the services or what services were offered. 

The issue in this case is the constitutionality of the services that are provided. Plaintiff’s request

overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant’s objection is well taken.

11. A copy of all ICE standards.

This request goes far beyond the scope of this litigation and overly broad and unduly

burdensome. Defendant’s objection is well taken.

In addition to the eleven request above, plaintiff seeks to compel defendant Melendez to

produce all grievances he has filed, all Kites he submitted, all information reports written concerning

him, and a copy of his custody file. These requests are far beyond what is reasonable or necessary

for the limited issues raised in this case. The requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome. 

Defendant’s objection is well taken.

The motion to compel, (Dkt. # 147), is DENIED, with the exception of defendant ensuring 

 plaintiff has a copy of section “J” of the contract. Defendant may file an objection specific to this

request.

C. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the motion for summary

judgment. 

This motion, (Dkt. # 148), is repetitive of the motion to delay consideration of summary

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 157 Filed 07/10/07 Page 4 of 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

ORDER - 5

judgment (Dkt. # 144). The issues have now been ruled on and will not be again addressed.

D. Second Motion to Compel Discovery, for a Protective Order and for Sanctions. 

Review of this motion, (Dkt # 149), shows the motion to be repetitive of (Dkt. # 147). The

issues have now been ruled on and will not be again addressed.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and counsel for defendants.

DATED this 10, day of July, 2007. 

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 157 Filed 07/10/07 Page 5 of 5