Summary
finding burden outweighed relevance for all appeals of deliberate indifference to inmate health and safety
Summary of this case from Brown v. WilliamsOpinion
No. CIV S-06-1904 RRB EFB P.
November 8, 2007
ORDER
Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the September 14, 2006, amended complaint in which plaintiff claims the following: (1) defendants Rustad and Naramore violated the Eighth Amendment by requiring that he work among general population prisoners even though they knew that plaintiff was in protective custody, resulting in prisoners attacking plaintiff; (2) on December 7, 2005, plaintiff was attacked by a general population prisoner, and during the attack defendants Saldonna and Cortes failed adequately to protect plaintiff; (3) defendants Walker, Minor, Garcia, Mareno, Vance and Neis knew that there was in adequate security for prisoners in protective custody to safely work in the general population, but nonetheless allowed plaintiff to be placed in a job requiring he come into contact with general population prisoners. On July 24, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants to respond to requests for production of documents. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2)(B).
Defendants argue that plaintiff has not complied with Local Rule 34-250(c) which requires the moving party on a motion to compel to file with the motion that part of the discovery request that is in dispute. Ordinarily, the party seeking to compel the production of documents submits with the motion the requests and the responses that are claimed to be inadequate. See L. R. 34-250(c). Here, plaintiff states that he seeks to compel the production of documents identified in requests 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8. He has not attached them. Nor is his motion clear as to which items he claims were not properly responded to by defendants. However, defendants' opposition includes as attachments the requests and responses. Accordingly, the court is able to address the merits of the motion, and for the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
I. Standards Governing Motion to Compel Discovery
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). 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 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 interrogatories or requests to produce documents. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2)(B), 33(b)(5), 34(b).
Plaintiff submitted the same eight requests for production of documents to all defendants. It appears from the record that defendants submitted a single response. Thus, the court considers the requests as to all defendants, distinguishing their obligations only where they differ.
A. Request No. 2.
In this request, plaintiff seeks, "any and all memoranda, logs, policies and or stated procedures in place at CSP-SAC, at A-facility, during 12-7-05, that relates to mixing of non-EOP and EOP inmates."
Defendants Garcia and Minor assert that they are retired. Therefore, they lack any access whatsoever to the documents plaintiff seeks. This objection is sustained.
Defendants Rustad, Narramore, Saldana, Cortes, Walker, Morena, Vance and Nies still work at CSP-Sac. These defendants object that they are not in possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to this request. They assert that they lack "control" because they may obtain them "only with the permission of another," Opp'n at 6, presumably the prison. For purposes of Rule 34, a party need not have legal ownership or physical possession to have control over a document. "[R]ather, documents are considered to be under a party's control when that party has the right, authority, or practical ability to obtain the documents from a non-party to the action." The Bank of New York v. Meridien Biao Bank Tanzania Ltd., 171 F.R.D. 135, 146 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Defendants Rustad, Narramore, Saldana, Cortes, Walker, Morena, Vance and Nies rely on Clark v. Vega Wholesale Inc., 181 F.R.D. 470, 470 (D. Nev. 1998), in which the moving party sought production of the responding party's medical records, which were in the custody of her physician. The issue in that case centered on the responding party's legal right to obtain documents, which the court found depended heavily on "[t]he relationship between the party and the person or entity having actual possession of the document. . . ." Clark v. Vega Wholesale Inc., 181 F.R.D. 470, 470 (D. Nev. 1998). The court determined that in order to be compelled to respond, the non-moving party must "have exclusive control of the documents," as by having the ability "to command release of the documents by the person or entity in actual possession," which "usually is the result of statute, affiliation or employment." Clark, 181 F.R.D. at 470. Applying this standard, the court declined to force the non-moving party to sign a medical release, which was necessary for her to obtain documents responsive to the request. Id.
Here, there is no issue of whether defendants must submit a release to obtain access to the documents plaintiff seeks. The documents inform defendants in the performance of employment duties. Furthermore, "Rule 34 performs the salutary function of creating access to documentation in an economical and expeditious fashion by requiring a party to produce relevant records not in its physical possession when the records can be obtained easily from a third-party source." Ice Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrant Corp., 2007 WL 2436765, at *3 (D. Kan. Aug. 22, 2007) (emphasis in original). Thus, a party who does not have actual possession of documents will be required to produce them if the party "has the practical ability to obtain the documents from another, irrespective of legal entitlements to the documents." Id. (emphasis in original). The court acknowledges that ordinarily it is the moving party who must demonstrate the element of "control" for purposes of Rule 34, but the objection is not specific enough for the court to determine its validity. It seems manifest that documents containing information about policies relating to the interaction of various groups of prisoners could easily be obtained from the prison, particularly where those documents and policies inform the defendants as to the performance of their jobs. Accordingly, this objection is overruled. B. Request No. 3
Plaintiff seeks "any and all (602) appeals filed against you in the past five years, alleging reckless disregard and or deliberate indifference to an inmate [sic] health and safety." Defendants object that the request is overly broad, burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants assert that the burden of locating and producing documents responsive to this request far outweighs the documents' minimal relevance to this action. See Carlson Companies, Inc. v. Sperry Hutchinson Co., 374 F. Supp. 1080, 1088 (D. Minn. 1974). They argue that plaintiff seeks mere accusations. Moreoever, his request applies to appeals by any inmate. Furthermore, the California Department of Rehabilitations and Corrections' database of grievances contains documents from no earlier than 2004. Many of the responsive documents would be located at various prisons within the CDCR system because they are in the central files of the prisoners who submitted the appeals. Thus, the time and effort to locate the responsive documents would be more expensive and time-consuming than the value of these documents to narrowing the issues for trial. Plaintiff in no way counters these assertions or otherwise attempts to narrow the request.
This objection is sustained. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
C. Request No. 5
Plaintiff seeks "any and all written procedures in place that prevent EOP and Non EOP inmates interaction during visiting, jobs and at medical." Defendants object that this request "is vague as to time and institution," and that responsive documents are not in their possession, custody and control. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has narrowed his request, but narrowly construed, the request seeks documents from CSP-Sac at A-facility on or around December 7, 2005. The court finds that this request duplicates Request No. 2. Accordingly, the defendants need not respond to it. D. Request No. 6
Plaintiff seeks "any and all logs, lists of memorandums [sic], investigative files, or other documents created within the last five years, in response to incidents which involved EOP and non EOP inmates." Defendants object that this requests seeks information outside the scope of discovery. The objection is sustained. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1); See also 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). Plaintiff has not shown this overly broad request has been tailored in a fashion whereby it would lead to admissible evidence.
E. Request No. 8
Plaintiff seeks any "logs, lists, directive [sic], instructions and documents governing mixing and/or non mixing of inmates classified as having sensitive needs with non-sensitive needs inmates." Defendants object on the ground that it is vague as to time and institution. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has narrowed his request, but narrowly construed, he seeks documents from CSP-Sac at A-facility on or around December 7, 2005. It appears that some of the documents responsive to this request may also be responsive to Request No. 2. However, the parties do not explain the difference, if any, between "sensitive needs" prisoners and "E.O.P." prisoners. Thus, these requests have not been shown to be duplicative.
Defendants Rustad, Narramore, Saldana, Cortes, Walker, Morena, Vance and Nies object that they lack "control" over these documents. For the same reasons explained with respect to Request No. 2, this objection is overruled.
As they did with respect to Request No. 2, defendants Garcia and Minor assert that they are retired. Therefore, they lack any access whatsoever to the documents plaintiff seeks. This objection is sustained.
Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's July 24, 2007, motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part as follows:
a. Garcia and Minor's objection that they lack possession, custody or control over documents responsive to Requests No. 2 and No. 8 is sustained;
b. Rustad, Narramore, Saldana, Cortes, Walker, Morena, Vance and Nies' objection that they lack possession, custody or control over documents responsive to Request No. 2 and No. 8 are overruled. They have 30 days from the date this order is signed to produce documents responsive to this request. Plaintiff has 20 days from the date those documents are served on him to supplement his opposition to defendants' pending motion for summary judgment, if appropriate. Defendants have 15 days from the date plaintiff files a supplement to file and serve a reply thereto.
c. Defendants' objection to Request No. 3 is sustained;
d. Defendants' objection to Request No. 5 is sustained;
e. Defendants' objection to Request No. 6 is sustained.