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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

David Ray Williams,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0998 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

C. Furguson, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, who claims (1)

defendant Furguson violated plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by

instigating disciplinary proceedings against plaintiff for having

a beard in violation of grooming standards; (2) defendant Young

violated plaintiff’s rights by finding plaintiff guilty of

violating the grooming standards; and (3) defendant Fish violated

plaintiff’s rights when plaintiff refused extra duties imposed to

sanction plaintiff for violating the grooming standards. 

Plaintiff asserts defendants’ objections to his request for 

Case 2:04-cv-00998-LKK -EFB Document 25 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 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

2

production of documents should be waived because they failed

timely to respond and, alternatively, plaintiff moves pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B), to compel defendants to respond to

requests for production of documents. 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not

privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any 

party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information sought need not be

admissible at trial if the discovery is reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. The court may

limit discovery if it determines the discovery sought is

unreasonably cumulative or obtainable from a more convenient or

less expensive source, the party seeking discovery had ample

opportunity to obtain the information sought, or the burden or

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). A party has a continuing duty to

supplement, correct or amend discovery responses if the court so

orders or if the party learns the responses were in some material

respect incorrect or incomplete and the information has not

otherwise been made available to other parties. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(e)(2).

Any party may request any other party produce for inspection

documents including writings, drawings, graphs, charts or data

compilations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). The requesting party must 

identify the items to be produced and the party upon whom the

request is made must make a written response stating that

inspection will be permitted as requested, unless the party 

Case 2:04-cv-00998-LKK -EFB Document 25 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 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

3

objects and states the basis therefor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b). 

Unless the court orders, or the parties stipulate to, a longer

time responses must be served within 30 days. The discovery

order gives the parties 45 days to respond to discovery requests.

A party may move for an order compelling discovery with

respect to objections or other failure to respond to

interrogatories or requests to produce documents. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 37(a)(2)(B), 33(b)(5), 34(b). 

Plaintiff mailed his request for production of documents May

24, 2005, and so defendants were required to serve their response

by July 11. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e) (three days shall be added

to the time for a party to act when service of a paper on the

party is by mail). Defendants served their responses July 11,

2005, and so timely responded.

Plaintiff requests “any and all grievances, complaints or

other documents received by defendants or their agents, at C.S.P.

Solano State Prison, mistreatment of inmates by C. Furguson, K.

Young, S. Fish and any memoranda investigative files, or other

documents since January 1, 1995.” Defendants object the request

seeks documents outside the scope of discovery.

The objection is sustained upon the ground plaintiff has not

shown how the information sought will assist in resolving

material factual disputes.

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00998-LKK -EFB Document 25 Filed 11/30/05 Page 3 of 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

4

Accordingly, plaintiff’s July 22, 2005, motion to compel is 

denied.

So ordered.

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00998-LKK -EFB Document 25 Filed 11/30/05 Page 4 of 4