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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY L. BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0055 LKK GGH P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel filed July 13, 2005. 

Plaintiff challenges defendant’s responses to his first request for production of documents and his

first set of interrogatories.

To put plaintiff’s motion in context, the court will describe plaintiff’s claims. The

only defendant is Correctional Officer Rose. Plaintiff alleges that he filed a grievance against

defendant Rose. Plaintiff alleges that in retaliation, defendant Rose deprived him of two separate

orders of typewriter ribbon for four months.

Request for Production of Documents

Request no. 1 seeks, “All documents that contain, mention, construe, or refer to

policies, directives, procedures or instructions governing the distribution of prisoner’s quarterly

Case 2:04-cv-00055-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 10/13/05 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

2

package and special purchase package (specifically the purchase of typewriter ribbons), at High

Desert State Prison (HDSP) between November 1, 2001 through May 1, 2002.”

Defendant initially objected that this request was vague and ambiguous as the

meaning of “contain, mention, construe, or refer to.” Defendant also objected that the documents

sought were equally available to plaintiff in the prison law library. In the motion to compel,

plaintiff states that he does not have access to these documents at the law library without a court

order because the law library will not copy these documents for him. In the opposition,

defendant states that plaintiff is capable of obtaining the documents and defendant should not

have to do plaintiff’s research.

Because defendant is able to represent that the documents sought are available to

plaintiff in the prison law library, the objection that the request is vague and ambiguous is

without merit. Because the documents sought are available to plaintiff in the prison law library,

the motion to compel is denied as to this request. That prison officials will not copy the

documents does not prevent plaintiff from discovering what the relevant regulations are and

providing this information to the court. 

Request no. 2 seeks, “All logs, lists, or other documentation reflecting Greg’s

grievances, Log Nos. HDSP-C-01001653 and HDSP-D-02-00194.” Request no. 3 seeks, “All

logs, lists, or other documentation that contain, mention, construe, or refer to the grievances or

amended-complaint filed by Greg regarding this action with the exception of that requested at

number 2 of this request.” Request no. 4 seeks, “All documents that contain, mention, construe,

or refer to allegations made in Greg’s amended-complaint and including responses to such

documents prepared by HDSP staff, whether from Greg or otherwise, between May 28, 2004 to

date of response.”

Defendant objected to requests nos. 2, 3, and 4 on a variety of grounds including

that these documents were equally available to plaintiff in his C-file. In the motion to compel, 

plaintiff argued that he did not know if the requested documents would be in his C-file and even

Case 2:04-cv-00055-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 10/13/05 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

3

if they were, there was no guarantee that he would be able to make copies of them. 

To the extent the documents sought are in plaintiff’s C-file, the motion to compel

is denied because plaintiff has access to his C-file. Plaintiff’s concern that prison officials will

not make copies of the documents is speculative. That prison officials will not copy the

documents does not prevent plaintiff from reviewing the documents and describing their contents

to the court. To the extent plaintiff is seeking documents not located in his C-file, the requests

are denied as vague. Plaintiff must provide more information regarding the documents sought

such as their possible location or title. 

Request no. 5 seeks, “Any job description, directive, or other documents that set

forth the duties of defendant Rose while employ [sic] at HDSP, including dates and job titles,

between December 1, 2001 through May 31, 2002.” In the opposition, defendant states that

plaintiff will be provided with a copy of his job description or duty statement within two weeks. 

Accordingly, the court deems the motion to compel resolved as to this request. 

Request no. 6 seeks, “All logs, lists or other documentation that evidence, contain,

mention, construe or refer to Greg’s order and receipt of two separate purchase [sic] of typewriter

ribbons (Walkenhorst’s invoice No. 38698 shipped on 12/26/01 and invoice no. 40746 shipped

on 1/10/02) as set forth in the amended complaint.” 

Defendant objected to this request on several grounds. Without waiving

objection, defendant produced various documents in response to this request. In the motion to

compel, plaintiff objected that defendant produced copies of these documents rather than the

originals. Plaintiff does not dispute the authenticity of these documents. Defendant satisfied this

request by providing plaintiff with the copies of these documents. Accordingly, the motion to

compel as to this request is denied.

Request no. 7 seeks, “All documents that contain, mention, construe or refer to

any insurance agreement or arrangement according to which an insurance company or other

person or entity will guaranty, act as a surety for, or otherwise bear any responsibility for

Case 2:04-cv-00055-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 10/13/05 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

4

litigating this action, including but not limited to paying the defendant’s attorneys’ fee, cost or

out-of-pocket expenses, or as paying for any monetary or injunctive relief ordered as part of a

court or consent judgment.”

Defendant objected that this request was overly broad, without reasonable

limitation in scope, and not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party to this action. 

Defendant also objected on the grounds that, as phrased, it may call for production of documents

that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product rule. The motion to

compel as to this request is denied as the information sought is not relevant to the claims or

defenses of any party.

Interrogatories

Interrogatory no. 1 states, “Identify yourself by our full name and badge number.”

Defendant identified himself as “J. Rose” and provided plaintiff with his badge number. 

Defendant refused to provide plaintiff with his full first name on grounds that it is confidential

information. Defendant argues that given the environment he works in, he should not have to

provide this information.

Most prisoner case defendants are identified in court by their first and last name. 

Defendant shall give plaintiff his first name.

Interrogatory no. 2 states, “Describe all positions and titles, with corresponding

dates, that you have held while employ [sic] at High Desert State Prison (HDSP) between

December 1, 2001 through May 2002.” Defendant responded to this interrogatory, “Defendant

was a Correctional Officer posted to Receiving and Release at High Desert State Prison during

the period in question.” In the motion to compel, plaintiff argues defendant’s response does not

identify the exact position and title held by defendant. The court finds that defendant’s response

adequately responds to the interrogatory. Accordingly, the motion to compel is denied as to this

request.

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-00055-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 10/13/05 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

5

Interrogatory no. 3 states, “Describe your job responsibilities for each position and

title stated in Interrogatory no. 2.” Defendant responded, “Defendant was responsible for

processing inmates in and out of Receiving and Release and for issuing packages and personal

property to inmates in Facility D at High Desert State Prison.” In the motion to compel, plaintiff

argues that defendant’s response is inadequate because interrogatory no. 3 was designed to work

in conjunction with interrogatory no. 2. The court does not understand plaintiff’s objection. 

Because defendant’s response adequately responds to this interrogatory, the motion to compel is

denied as to this request.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 13, 2005, motion to

compel is denied, except as to Interrogatory 1.

DATED: 10/13/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

br55.com

Case 2:04-cv-00055-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 10/13/05 Page 5 of 5