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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESHANE J. HOLMES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1308 DFL PAN P

vs.

STEVE TEER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

complaint alleges that while supervising plaintiff defendant Teer discriminated against plaintiff

because of plaintiff’s race by belittling plaintiff, assigning plaintiff to menial tasks while

assigning less qualified prisoners to more difficult tasks, refusing to verify plaintiff’s work hours,

replacing plaintiff with a white prisoner and excluding plaintiff from a list of ‘critical workers”

released from lockdown to perform essential tasks. On January 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion

to compel production of documents pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34(b) and

37(a)(2)(B). On February 1, 2006, defendant filed an opposition. Discovery closes June 23,

2006. 

STANDARD FOR MOTION TO COMPEL

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

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 26 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 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

2

to the claim or defense of any party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information sought need not be 

admissible at trial if it 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). 

Any party may request any other party to 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 objects and states the basis therefor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).

A party may move for an order compelling discovery with respect to objections or

other failure to respond to requests to produce documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B), 34(b). 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks an order finding defendant waived all objections upon the ground 

defendant failed to respond to plaintiff’s request within thirty days of service thereof pursuant to

Rule 34(b). However, Rule 34(b) permits court to direct a shorter or longer time for responses. 

The court’s discovery order, filed October 19, 2005, allowed the parties forty-five days to

respond to discovery requests. Also, defendant Teer had three additional days pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 6(a). 

Plaintiff served the request by mail November 3, 2005, and defendant Teer timely

served a response December 21, 2005. 

Plaintiff’s motion on this ground is denied.

The court now turns to defendant’s objections, addressed seriatim.

Request Number 1

Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny and all grievances, memorandums [sic], letters, complaints,

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 26 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 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

3

or other such documents received by the defendant at California State prison-Solano (CSPSolano) concerning the termination of plaintiff’s apprenticeship and employment with Inmate

Day Labor (I.D.L.) and any memoranda, investigative files, letters, complaints, greivances [sic],

or other documents created in response to such documents from September 4, 2003 to present.” 

Defendant objects that the request is overbroad and burdensome. Federal courts

reject claims of burdensomeness which are not supported by a specific, detailed showing, usually

by affidavit, of why weighing the need for discovery against the burden it will impose permits the 

conclusion that court should not allow it. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. Curtis, 189

F.R.D. 4 (D.D.C.1999). Defendant does not substantiate the objection.

Defendant’s objection is overruled.

Defendant objects that the phrase, “termination of plaintiff’s apprenticeship and

employment with Inmate Day Labor (I.D.L.)” is vague and ambiguous. The phrase speaks for

itself. 

Defendant’s objection is overruled.

Defendant objects that plaintiff seeks documents outside the scope of discovery.

This objection is overruled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); See Hallett v. Morgan,

296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (district courts have broad discretion to decide questions of

relevance for purposes of discovery).

Defendant objects that plaintiff seeks privileged information. A party opposing

the production of documents upon the ground the information sought is privileged may not rely

upon “boilerplate objections or blanket refusals.” Burlington Nortthern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v.

United States District Court for the District of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Instead, a party must “describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not

produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or

protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Defendant’s objection is a blanket refusal to produce the documents.

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 26 Filed 05/31/06 Page 3 of 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

4

Defendant’s objection is overruled.

Defendant objects that he cannot provide documents prepared during an internal

investigation about the matter because he is unaware any were prepared and if they existed he

would not be able to obtain them.

Insofar as documents are within defendant’s possession, custody or control, he

must determine whether they exist and produce them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.

Accordingly, defendant Teer must supplement his response to this request.

Defendant objects to producing documents related to plaintiff’s administrative

appeals because they are equally available to plaintiff. Defendant has not shown the burden or

expense of producing the documents outweighs their likely benefit. Insofar as they are within his

possession, custody or control he must produce them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), 34(a).

Defendant Teer must supplement his response or produce the documents.

Request Number 2

Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny and all statutes policies, procedures, memoranda,

institutional forms, directives, or instructions given to defendant concerning CSP-Solano

institutional Inmate/Staff training relating to discrimination, sexual harassment, overfamiliarity

and any other such unlawful conduct as related to staff employment at CSP-Solano.”

Defendant Teer objects the request is overbroad and unduly burdensome, seeks

documents outside the scope of discovery and seeks information equally available to plaintiff.

Defendant Teer’s objection is sustained in part. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1);

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Curtis, supra.

 Defendant Teer must produce documents concerning his training within the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation relating to racial discrimination.

Request Number 3

Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny and all documents, statutes, policies, directives, or

instructions governing staff progressive disciplinarymeasures by defendant from September 4,

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 26 Filed 05/31/06 Page 4 of 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

5

2003, to the present at CSP-Solano.”

Defendant objects the request seeks documents that are outside the scope of

discovery.

Defendant’s objection is sustained. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Request Number 4

Plaintiff seeks, “[a]ny and all documents created by defendant and any I.D.L. staff

member in response to greivances [sic] filed by plaintiff concerning plaintiff’s apprenticeship

status and concerning plaintiff’s termination of employment with I.D.L. at CSP-Solano.”

Defendant objects the request is unduly burdensome, seeks documents outside the

scope of discovery and are available to plaintiff.

Defendant’s objection is overruled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 34(a); See National

Rescources Defense Council v. Curtis, supra.

Request Number 5

Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny and all logs, lists, documents, files, or other documentation

supplied to I.D.L. management staff by defendant at CSP-Solano from the period of October 1,

2003, to the date of your response.”

Defendant objects that the request seeks documents that are outside the scope of

discovery.

Defendant’s objection is sustained. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Request Number 6

Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny and all memoranda, documents, institutional instructions,

policies, procedures, union instructions, union bylaws, or other documentation governing

defendant’s duties and obligations as a journeyman electrician supervising apprentices in

accordance with California State Department of Industrial Relations Apprenticeship standards;

California State Business and professions Code standards; and California State Government

Code, laws and standards.”

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 26 Filed 05/31/06 Page 5 of 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

6

Defendant objects that this request seeks documents outside the scope of

discovery.

Defendant’s objection is sustained. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Request Number 7

Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny and all documents pertaining to California apprenticeship

rights, standards, bylaws, and agreements that defendant was obligated to adhere to.”

Defendant objects that this request seeks documents outside the scope of

discovery.

Defendant’s objection is sustained. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Request Number 8

Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny and all International Brotherhood of Electrical Works

(I.B.E.W.) Union rules, regulations, bylaws, directives, and instructions , as well as Local

I.B.E.W. #180 in Vallejo, Ca. Rules, regulations, bylaws, instruction [sic], and directives

governing apprenticeship that defendant was to adhere to.”

Defendant objects that this request seeks documents outside the scope of

discovery.

Defendant’s objection is sustained. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Request Number 9

Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny and all documents, policies and procedures, or other

documentation of defendant’s local union rules, regulations, and bylaws governing the

prohibition of discrimination, racial or otherwise, in employment of registered apprentices.”

Defendant objects that this request seeks documents outside the scope of

discovery.

Defendant’s objection is sustained. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 26 Filed 05/31/06 Page 6 of 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

7

Request Number 10

Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny and all documentation as to California Code of Regulations

governing defendant’s obligations as a journeyman electrician to record, document, or otherwise

verify plaintiff’s apprenticeship on-the-job hours in accordance with California Code of

Regulations, Title 8 directives.”

Defendant objects this request is vague, seeks information outside the scope of

discovery and seeks information available to plaintiff.

Defendant’s objections are overruled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 34(a). 

Defendant shall produce documents describing defendant’s obligation to verify and record

plaintiff’s work hours while plaintiff was an apprentice.

Request Number 11

Plaintiff seeks “[a]ll documentation utilized by defendant under California Labor

Code, Chapter 4, to terminate plaintiff’s apprenticeship and employment.”

Defendant objects the request is vague, defendant did not terminate plaintiff’s

employment, the request seeks information outside the scope of discovery and seeks information

available to plaintiff.

Defendant’s objections are overruled. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 34(a).

Request Number 12

Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny and all documentation regarding policies, procedures,

statutes, standards, and determinations under the State of California Plan for Equal Opportunity

in Apprenticeship utilized by defendant.”

Defendant objects that the request seeks documents outside the scope of

discovery.

Defendant’s objection is sustained. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 26 Filed 05/31/06 Page 7 of 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

8

Request Number 13

Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny and all documentation regarding rules, regulations, or

policies established by CSP-Solano’s apprenticeship program sponsorship of plaintiff’s

apprenticeship agreement.”

Defendant objects that this request seeks documents outside the scope of

discovery.

Defendant’s objection is sustained. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Request Number 14

Plaintiff seeks [a]ny and all documentation or determinations made by CSPSolano’s apprenticeship committee or apprenticeship coordinator utilized by defendant to

terminate plaintiff’s apprenticeship agreement and employment with I.D.L.”

Defendant objects that this request is vague, unduly burdensome and seeks

information outside the scope of discovery. Without waiving his objections, defendant attached

documents responsive to the request.

Defendant’s objections are overruled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Natural

Resources Defense Council v. Curtis, supra.

Request Number 15

Plaintiff seeks [a]ny and all documentation relating to any investigation by either

I.D.L. staff management or CSP-Solano administrative staff to verify allegations by defendant

from September 4, 2003 to the date of your response.”

Defendant objects that the request is compound, burdensome, seeks information

that is privileged and seeks information outside defendant’s possession. Without waiving his

objections, defendant asserts that after reasonable search of readily obtainable documents, he

found no responsive documents.

Defendant’s objections are overruled. He shall supplement his response insofar as

he is required by Rule 26(e).

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 26 Filed 05/31/06 Page 8 of 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

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 13, 2006, motion to compel is granted and denied as set

forth above; and

2. No later than June 23, 2006, defendant Teer shall comply with this order.

DATED: May 26, 2006.

/004/001; holm1308.mtc

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 26 Filed 05/31/06 Page 9 of 9