Opinion
Case No.: 3:13-cv-0807 BEN (KSC)
09-17-2015
RUBEN GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. D. STRAYHORN, et al., Defendant.
ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENT FOR JOINT MOTIONS IN DISCOVERY DISPUTES
[Doc. Nos. 42, 29, 40]
Before the Court are three interrelated motions concerning discovery of documents associated with grievances filed by prisoners incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California. [Doc. No. 29, Def. Motion to Quash Subpoena; Doc. No. 40, Def. Application for Relief from the Requirement for Joint Motions in Discovery Disputes; Doc. No. 42, Pl. Motion to Compel Discovery.] Defendants have opposed the Motion to Compel Discovery. [Doc. No. 44]. The Plaintiff did not file oppositions to defendants' Motion to Quash or Application for Relief [Doc. Nos. 29, 40]; the Court construes the Plaintiff's subsequent submission of the Motion to Compel Discovery as a consolidated response to these two previously filed related Motions. [Doc. Nos. 29, 40.]
For the reasons outlined below, the Court finds that plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery must be DENIED. [Doc. No. 42.] Defendants Application for Relief from the Requirement for Joint Motions in Discovery Disputes is GRANTED. [Doc. No. 40.] Defendants' Motion to Quash Subpoena is consequently GRANTED. [Doc. No. 29.]
Background
Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed the original Complaint on April 3, 2013. [Doc. No. 1.] The operative Second Amended Complaint ("Complaint") was filed on July 16, 2013. [Doc. No. 6.] Therein, plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated his Constitutional rights under the First Amendment by taking actions of retaliation for engaging in free speech activities or filing lawful grievances. [Doc. No. 6, at p. 5.]
Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Discovery makes a general application for relief requesting the Court to compel cooperation in the discovery process and references interrogatories, request for admissions, and document requests. [Doc. No. 42, at p. 1-2.] Plaintiff attached to the Motion copies of the defendants' responses to his interrogatories and document requests, which contained a typed version of the original request before stating the defendants' objection and the substantive reasoning behind each response. [Doc. No. 42, at p. 24-47.] Neither party attached the plaintiff's original interrogatories, request for admissions, or discovery requests. [Doc. No. 42; Doc No. 29.] No request for admissions were presented to the Court by either party. Id.
The Court construes plaintiff's attachments as an acknowledgement that the defendants properly represented and transcribed his interrogatories and document requests.
Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities focuses solely on his request for the production of certain documents, without addressing the interrogatories or request for admissions. The plaintiff did not articulate any reasoning or basis why the interrogatories and admissions provided by defendant did not comply with discovery obligations. The Court liberally construes the pleadings and papers of a pro se litigant. Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). However, it is not the Court's role to serve as an advocate for either party, and the Court will not comb through the papers submitted by the plaintiff to generate arguments on his behalf. Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-66 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that the court must remain a "referee" in the adversarial process, and cannot serve as legal counsel for a party, even if that party is a pro se litigant). Accordingly, the Court construes the totality of the Motion to Compel as a request for an order compelling the defendants to produce only the referenced documents in the Motion.
I. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Plaintiff's Motion seeks the production of "any and all grievances complaints, or other documents received by the defendants or their agents at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJDCF") concerning mistreatment of inmates by defendants and any memoranda, investigative files, or other documents created in response to such documents." [Doc. No. 42, at p. 3.]
"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claim or defense of any party involved in the pending action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). However, a court may limit discovery of relevant material if it determines that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). The party resisting discovery generally bears the burden to show that the discovery requested is irrelevant to the issues in the case or is overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonable, or oppressive. If the resisting party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the moving party to show the information is relevant and necessary. Henderson v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C., 269 F.R.D. 682, 686 (S.D. Fla 2010).
Plaintiff argues that defendants should be ordered to produce the above-described documents because they are relevant and important to his case. He represents that the requested documents relate directly to the credibility of the defendants and could be used as evidence at trial to show that they have a habit, character, or custom of engaging in retaliation. [Doc. No. 42, at p. 8.] On due process grounds, he also argues that the Court should not allow defendants to withhold the requested documents based on privilege or confidentiality grounds. [Doc. No. 42, at p. 3.]
Defendants argue that they should not be compelled to provide plaintiff with any of these documents. First, prison grievances or "602 appeals" are logged and maintained according to the names of the inmates who filed them, not by the names of staff members who are named in the grievances. Defendants therefore argue that plaintiff's request is overly broad and unreasonably burdensome, as it would require a search of every grievance or "602 appeal" ever filed by any inmate at any time to determine whether it included allegations against the defendants. [Doc No. 44, at p. 8.] Construing the request as pertaining to 69 third party individual prisoners plaintiff has identified, defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to provide any nexus connecting the named individuals to the plaintiff's claim. [Doc. No. 44, at p. 5-6.]
In support of this argument, defendants incorporated by reference the Declarations of B. Baenziger, a correctional counselor and M. LeStage, the Use of Force Coordinator, both of whom are employed at R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility, and are familiar with the files and documents maintained at the facility. [Doc. No. 44, at p. 5-6; 7-10]
Second, defendants argue that disclosure of grievances or "602 appeals" that were not filed by plaintiff would violate the privacy rights of other inmates who have filed grievances. [Doc. No. 44 at p. 5.] Defendants note that the California Code of Regulations prohibits prison officials from disclosing the individually filed grievances to third-party inmates. [Doc. No. 44, at p. 9.] The third-party prisoners therefore lodge complaints with an expectation of confidentiality. Id. Even redacting the names and identification numbers of the third-party inmates would not adequately protect them as the reports contain sufficient identifiable information that could place inmates in jeopardy if others became aware of their confidential complaints. [Doc. No. 44, at p. 9-10.]
Third, defendants contend that plaintiff has not shown that the requested documents seek information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. They further contend that plaintiff's only reason for seeking disclosure of the documents is to use them to reflect negatively on defendants' character propensity, in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404. [Doc. No. 44. at p. 5-7.]
Fourth, defendants argue that disciplinary records are protected from disclosure by the official information privilege and the defendants' privacy interests. [Doc. No. 44, at p. 5-6.] As a result, defendants claim these documents are protected unless the potential benefits of disclosure outweigh the potential disadvantages. They assert that the potential disadvantages of disclosing information from their personnel files and disciplinary records outweighs the likely benefits, and that the potential benefits to plaintiff of disclosure are low. Specifically, defendants assert that the risk of harm from disclosure of sensitive information in their disciplinary records, including confidential responses to administrative appeals not provided to the original complainant, is very high.
In support of this argument, defendants cite the Declaration of M. LeStage, the Use of Force Coordinator, and the Declaration of B, Baenziger, an Appeals Coordinator at R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility, who are familiar with the files and records maintained there. These Declarations explain that personnel files contain personal, private, and confidential information, so it is the policy of the Department of Corrections and R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility not to reveal the contents of these files to third parties. [Doc. No. 42. at p. 12-14; 19-21] The Declarations also outline the governmental interests in maintaining the privacy and confidentiality of these documents, as well as the risks of harm to the defendants and other inmates if the third-party grievances are disclosed. [Doc. No. 42. at p. 11-15; 18-22.]
This Court found persuasive the defendants' argument that plaintiff's request for production of grievances or "602 appeals" by other inmates and associated documents in his request, even if relevant, is overly broad and unduly burdensome to defendants. Producing grievances or "602 appeals" would be too time-consuming and expensive as it would require defendants to review each and every grievance or "602 appeal" ever filed to determine whether any of the defendants is named therein. [Doc. No. 42. at p. 11-15; 18-22.]
It is apparent that the plaintiff is seeking production of the documents described in his request in an attempt to show at trial that defendants have a propensity for misconduct. However, "[c]haracter evidence is normally not admissible in a civil rights case." Gates v. Rivera, 993 F.2d 697, 700 (9th Cir. 1993). Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) specifically provides that: "Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Therefore, even if prior grievances or complaints have been made against defendants, this evidence would likely not be admissible for plaintiff's purpose.
The Court concludes that plaintiff's request is overly broad as to time and subject matter. Further, plaintiff has not provided any evidence differentiating the 69 named individuals from any other inmate in the facility. As to subject matter, plaintiff has failed to articulate how the filing of a grievance or lawsuit by another inmate has any relevance to his pending claim.
Production of the requested documents would also improperly implicate the privacy rights of other inmates. See, e.g., Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n. 21 (1984) (referring to the authority of Federal Courts to issue protective orders for good cause under Rule 26(c) and stating that privacy interests are a valid reason for restricting discovery). For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery is DENIED.
It is unnecessary for the Court to determine at this time whether the requested documents are protected by the official information privilege or by defendants' privacy interests, because plaintiff request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Court therefore takes no position at this time as to whether the requested documents are protected by the official information privilege.
II. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
On January 9, 2015, prior to filing the Motion to Compel, plaintiff served a subpoena duces tecum upon non-party "Custodian of Records - At State Prison RJD-CF," requesting the disclosure of documents relevant to complaints filed by seventeen prisoners against defendant Strayhorn for improper conduct by seventeen prisoners. [Doc No. 29-2, at p. 4.] The Custodian of Records made a timely objection to the subpoena. [Doc. No. 29-3, p. 1-3.] The defendants filed a Notice and Motion to Quash on January 20, 2015.
While the Chamber Rules require joint motions for discovery disputes, it is the practice of the Court to relax the rule requiring joint motions when one of the parties is a prisoner filing pro se. Therefore the Application for Relief from the Requirement for Joint Motions in Discovery Disputes by the defendant is GRANTED. [Doc. No. 40.]
Under Rule 45, a non-party served with a subpoena may make objections to the subpoena within 14 days after service or before the time for compliance (if less than 14 days). Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(2)(B). On timely motion, the court may quash or modify the subpoena. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A). A party cannot object to a subpoena duces tecum served on a nonparty, but rather, must seek a protective order or make a motion to quash. Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 636 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Ordinarily a party lacks standing to quash a subpoena issued to a third party, unless the party objecting claims a personal right or privilege with regard to the documents sought. Id. An individual has sufficient interest in the information contained in areas such as their bank records, social media networking sites, and personnel files to constitute grounds for standing. Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 965, 974 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
While neither party addressed the question of defendants' standing to challenge the third party subpoena served by plaintiff, the Court finds that the information sought by the plaintiff is comparable to information contained in personnel files in Crispin, supra. The plaintiff is seeking the disciplinary records and complaints filed against Officer Strayhorn which ultimately concern his actions as an employee in the prison facility. This type of information bears directly on the defendant's employment and performance. Because the documents most closely resemble the category of personnel files described in Crispin, the Court finds that defendant Strayhorn has standing to file a motion to quash the subpoena served by plaintiff.
Defendants cite three distinct reasons to quash the subpoena in their motion: (1) it is void because it was not personally served; (2) it is overly broad and unreasonably burdensome; and (3) the requested material is confidential and violates the privacy rights of both Officer Strayhorn and the third-party prisoners. [Doc. No. 29, p. 1-2.]
The documents requested by the plaintiff in the subpoena are exactly the same subject and type of documents sought in plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Compare [Doc. No. 29-2, p. 4] with [Doc. No. 42. p. 25-26.] For the same reasons addressed above, the Court finds that the plaintiff's request is overly broad and unreasonably burdensome. See supra p. 3-7. Therefore, defendants' Motion to Quash Subpoena must be GRANTED.
The Court takes no position at this time as to whether the subpoena is technically invalid or protected by the official information privilege, as the documents and information sought by the plaintiff are overly broad and unreasonably burdensome. --------
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's Motion to Compel is be DENIED. [Doc No. 42.] Consequently, the defendants Motion to Quash and the Application for Relief are hereby GRANTED. [Doc. No. 29; Doc. No. 40.]
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: September 17, 2015
/s/_________
KAREN S. CRAWFORD
United States Magistrate Judge