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

BENJAMIN ELLIS, No. CIV S-04-1483-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ALBONICO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery

responses (Doc. 35). Pursuant to the court’s February 23, 2006, order, defendants have filed a

response (Doc. 39). Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 41). 

Plaintiff seeks further responses to the following request for production of

documents:

Any and all grievances, complaints, or other documents received by the

defendants or their agents at High Desert State Prison concerning

mistreatment of inmates by defendants Albonico, Bates, Weaver, and Coe,

and any memoranda, investigative files or documents created in response

to such documents, since January 1, 1995.

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 43 Filed 04/06/06 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

Defendants responded to this request as follows:

Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad, it

hearsay, is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to

admissible evidence. Further, the request is objectionable on the grounds

that it is burdensome in that incident reports and investigative reports are

referenced by inmate names, not name of employee; therefore correctional

staff would have to search all records by hand, overtaxing staff resources

with an unreasonable expenditure of time and energy.

Generally, discovery may be obtained “...regarding any matter, not privileged,

which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(1). Relevancy in the discovery context has been construed broadly to encompass any

matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that bear on, any issue that is

in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978) (citing Hickman v.

Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). Therefore, a discovery request directed at discovering a

matter which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is not

within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Id. Consistent with this rule, discovery is not

limited to issues raised by the pleadings, for discovery itself is designed to help define and

clarify the issues. Id. at 351. Nor is discovery limited to the merits of a case, for a variety of

fact-oriented issues may arise during litigation that are not related to the merits. Id.

Discovery may not be obtained regarding matters which are privileged. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Thus, if a discovery privilege exists, information may be withheld, even if

relevant to the case. See Baldridge v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345 (1982). The question of privilege is

determined by reference to the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Campbell v. Gerrans, 592 F.2d

1054 (9th Cir. 1979). Generally, questions of privilege “...shall be governed by the principles of

the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of

reason and experience.” Fed. R. Evid. 501. However, in civil actions which do not raise a

federal question, the question of privilege is determined by state law. See Fed. R. Evid. 501.

But, “when state privilege law is consistent, or at least compatible with, federal privilege law, the

two shall be read together in order to accommodate the legitimate expectations of the state’s

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 43 Filed 04/06/06 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

citizens.” Pagano v. Oroville Hospital, 145 F.R.D. 683, 687 (E.D. Cal. 1993).

Finally, relevant non-privileged discovery may be limited if: (1) the discovery

sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is

more convenient; or (2) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’

resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the

proposed discovery in resolving the issues. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).

Without expressing an opinion as to whether the discovery is relevant or

privileged, the court sustains defendants’ objection that the discovery request is burdensome. 

Regarding the request for “any and all grievances, complaints, or other documents received by

the defendants or their agents at High Desert State Prison concerning mistreatment of inmates by

defendants Albonico, Bates, Weaver, and Coe” since January 1, 1995, this would require

defendants to comb through their personnel files for over the past ten years. Because the request

also seeks documents received by defendants agents, it would also require defendants to scour all

the personnel files of any unspecified number of other individuals, which is simply not realistic,

even setting privacy concerns aside. Plaintiff has not offered any argument in either his motion

or reply to even suggest what issue he requires the discovery to develop. 

Regarding the request for “any memoranda, investigative files or documents

created in response to such documents,” again, the court sustains defendants’ objection that the

request is burdensome. This would also require defendants to not only go through their own

files, but countless other possible sources of the requested documents. For example, it could be

that a court action was filed as a result of grievance lodged against one of the defendants. If so,

documents covered by this request would include everything associated with that case,

regardless of whether the case was frivolous or not. This example alone suffices to demonstrate

the burdensome nature of the request. 

For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel will be denied.

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 43 Filed 04/06/06 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

Also pending before the court is defendants’ request for an extension of time to

file a dispositive motion (Doc. 39). Pursuant to the court’s February 23, 2006, order modifying

the remaining schedule for this litigation, dispositive motions are currently due by May 15, 2006,

plaintiff’s pre-trial statement is due by July 17, 2006, and defendants’ pre-trial statement is due

by July 31, 2006. Defendants seek an extension of 45 days from March 14, 2006, to file a

dispositive motion. Because the current May 15, 2006, deadline is within this window, the

requested extension will be denied as unnecessary. The existing schedule remains in effect. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied; and

2. Defendants’ motion for an extension of time is denied as unnecessary. 

DATED: April 6, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 43 Filed 04/06/06 Page 4 of 4