Greene v. CDCR

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 12, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00082
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WENDY GREENE, individually and in her No. 2:23-CV-0082-WBS-DMC capacity as successor-in-interest to the 12 Estate of Michael Hastey, 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 16 REHABILITATION, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil action. 20 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel. See ECF No. 55. The parties have filed 21 a joint statement. See ECF No. 61. At a hearing before the undersigned on December 4, 2024, 22 the Court discussed the various items of discovery in dispute and directed that recrafted requests 23 be served within 90 days. The Court also directed the parties to continue their meet-and-confer 24 efforts and, again within 90 days, to seek an informal discovery conference before the 25 undersigned should disputes remain. The matter was then submitted. To date, no informal 26 conference has been requested and the Court now issues the following order resolving Plaintiff’s 27 motion. 28 / / / 1 The purpose of discovery is to "remove surprise from trial preparation so the 2 parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute." United States v. 3 Chapman Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). Rule 4 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers guidance on the scope of discovery 5 permitted:

6 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged information that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of 7 the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, 8 the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 9 outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 11 12 Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "a party seeking discovery 13 may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection." Fed. R. 14 Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an "evasive or 15 incomplete disclosure, answer, or response." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). "District courts have 'broad 16 discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 16.'" Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. 18 Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). 19 Under Rule 37, the party moving to compel bears the burden of informing the 20 court (1) which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, (2) which of the 21 responses are disputed, (3) why the party believes the response is deficient, (4) why any 22 objections are not justified, and (5) why the information sought through discovery is relevant to 23 the prosecution of this action. McCoy v. Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv-1808-MJS (PC), 2016 U.S. Dist. 24 LEXIS 75435, 2016 WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv- 25 5646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24418, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 26 2008). Rule 37 also requires the moving party to meet and confer with the opposing party. See 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). 28 / / / 1 "Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly." Garneau v. City of 2 Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). "The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden 3 of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, 4 the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, 5 and the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections." Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 6 07cv200 JM (PCL), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42339, 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 7 2009) (internal citation omitted). 8 9 I. BACKGROUND 10 A. Plaintiff's Allegations 11 In the joint statement, Plaintiff provides the following brief summary of the 12 nature of the action:

13 This civil rights action arises from the brutal and preventable murder of Michael Hastey (“Michael”). Michael’s murder occurred on February 18, 14 2022, on the C Yard at High Desert State Prison (“High Desert”). According to multiple inmate witnesses and CDCR’s Investigative Services Unit 15 (“ISU”), the murder was ordered by the Aryan Brotherhood (“AB”). More specifically, the murder was ordered by the AB’s “shot caller,” William 16 Lutts, who wanted Michael dead for two primary reasons: (1) Michael’s Central File (“C File”) contained multiple “R Suffix” notations as well as the 17 details of his juvenile arrest (not conviction) for a sex offense; and (2) Michael’s biological father, Jason Hastey (“Jason”), was a correctional 18 officer, or guard, at High Desert and a former Lassen County Sheriff’s Deputy. On the date of his death, Michael had only been in CDCR custody 19 for seven months and, at 19, he was one of the youngest inmates ever murdered on a California prison yard. 20 ECF No. 61, pg. 2. 21 22 Plaintiff Wendy Greene is Michael Hastey's mother and successor-in-interest to his estate. See 23 id. 24 B. Procedural History Related to Discovery in Dispute 25 On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff served requests for production of documents, set one, 26 on Defendants. See ECF No. 61-3 (Exhibit 1). Defendants served their initial responses on 27 August 10, 2023. See ECF No. 61-4 (Exhibit 2). With their initial responses, Defendants also 28 served a privilege log. See ECF No. 61-5 (Exhibit 2-A). Defendants served their first 1 supplemental responses on August 29, 2023. See ECF No. 61-8 (Exhibit 3). Defendants served 2 their second supplemental responses on September 20, 2023. See ECF No. 61-11 (Exhibit 6). 3 Following a meet-and-confer video conference on September 21, 2023, Plaintiff 4 served amended requests for production, set one, on October 17, 2023, in which several of 5 Plaintiff's initial requests were narrowed. See ECF No. 61-13 (Exhibit 8). 6 On October 18, 2023, Defendants served their third supplemental responses to 7 Plaintiff's July 14, 2023, requests for production. See ECF No. 61-18 (Exhibit 10). On 8 November 27, 2023, Defendants served their initial responses to Plaintiff's amended requests 9 for production, set one. See ECF No. 61-22 (Exhibit 11). With these responses, Defendants 10 also provided a second privilege log. See ECF No. 61-23 (Exhibit 11-A). Defendants served 11 their first supplemental responses to Plaintiff's amended requests for production on November 12 28, 2023. See ECF No. 61-24 (Exhibit 12). On the same day, Defendants served a third 13 privilege log. See ECF No. 61-25 (Exhibit 12-A). 14 Following further meet-and-confer efforts, on December 15, 2023, Defendants 15 served their fourth supplemental responses to Plaintiff's July 14, 2023, requests for production. 16 See ECF No. 61-28 (Exhibit 15). 17 While Plaintiff was conferring with Defendants regarding the discovery outlined 18 above, Plaintiff also pursued discovery from non-party Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 19 pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum served by Plaintiff on OIG on October 17, 2023. See ECF 20 No. 61-14 (Exhibit 9). Defendants served objections to Plaintiff's subpoena on October 31, 21 2023, but did not file a motion to quash the subpoena. See ECF No. 61-15 (Exhibit 9-A). 22 In the joint statement, Plaintiff offers the following summary of this process:

23 Over the following months, Plaintiff worked diligently with the OIG to identify and cull hundreds of thousands of pages of potentially 24 responsive documents and CDCR database information that Defendants had refused to disclose or even identify. During this time, the OIG would send 25 Plaintiff a log identifying and describing broad categories of potentially responsive documents and information and Plaintiff would respond by 26 identifying those categories that were potentially relevant to her claims. The OIG would then send Plaintiff another log in which the irrelevant documents 27 and information were removed, and more detail was provided about the potentially relevant documents and information. This iterative process 28 continued until June of 2024, when the OIG and Plaintiff were satisfied that 1 the log identified only the documents and information that were relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. In other words, because Defendants refused to comply 2 with their discovery obligations, Plaintiff was forced to resort to conducting discovery with a non-party in order to identify the discoverable documents 3 and information in Defendants’ possession.

4 ECF No. 61, pgs. 8-9 (bold in original). 5 Plaintiff served OIG's privilege log on Defendants on June 13, 2024. See ECF No. 61-16 6 (Exhibit 9-B). 7 At issue in the pending motion to compel are Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's 8 July 14, 2023, requests for production nos. 6, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 31, and 32. 9 Pursuant to the District Judge's October 23, 2024, minute order, all fact 10 discovery is due to be completed by May 19, 2025. See ECF No. 59. Pursuant to the District 11 Judge’s March 7, 2025, order approving the parties’ stipulation, all expert discovery is due to 12 be completed by August 20, 2025. See ECF No. 72. The pre-trial conference is set for 13 December 15, 2025, and a jury trial is set to commence on March 17, 2026. See id. 14 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Below the Court considers the 13 items of disputed discovery (in the order 17 presented by the parties in the joint statement at ECF No. 61). 18 A. No. 16 19 Request (served July 14, 2023) 20 The Complete personnel/employee file of Jason Hastey. 21 Initial Response (served August 10, 2023)

22 Defendants object to this request because it is overbroad in time and scope and seeks documents that are not proportional to the needs of the case. 23 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected and privileged by the 24 official-information privilege. Finally, Defendants object to this request because it seeks documents that would violate the privacy rights of third 25 parties. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendants respond 26 as follows: Defendants object to this request to the extent it violates the privacy rights of third parties and is not proportional to the needs of the case. 27 Accordingly, Defendants will not produce responsive records to this request. Defendants further refer Plaintiff to the Official-Information Declaration of J. 28 Ambrose and privilege log attached hereto. 1 Supplemental Response (served November 13, 2024)

2 Defendants object to this request because it is overbroad in time and scope and seeks documents that are not proportional to the needs of the case. 3 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected and privileged by the 4 official-information privilege. Finally, Defendants object to this request because it seeks documents that would violate the privacy rights of third 5 parties. Subject to and without waiving these objections, and expressly 6 reasserting the prior response and objections, Defendants further respond as follows: Construed as narrowed by Plaintiff in the meet and confer process to 7 the portion(s) of Jason Hastey’s file that mention, refer to, or relate to Michael Hastey or his murder, and limited to such, Defendants have 8 conducted a further diligent search and reasonable inquiry and have no responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. 9 Plaintiff's various arguments concerning no. 16 are rendered moot because, 10 notwithstanding objections, Defendants have responded to the request, as narrowed, indicating 11 that no responsive documents exist. 12 At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the request had not been formally 13 narrowed by way of an amended request. Notwithstanding the lack of a formally narrowed 14 written request, the meet-and-confer process resulted in an agreement to search for documents 15 responsive to a narrowed request and the agreement has been fulfilled with Defendants’ response 16 indicating documents do not exist. The Court is not going to thwart the meet-and-confer process 17 by undermining the parties’ agreement. Based on the representation that the request has been 18 informally narrowed, and the representation that documents responsive to the narrowed request 19 do not exist, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as to request for production no. 16. 20 B. No. 15 21 Amended Request (served October 17, 2023) 22 The complete training file of each of the defendants named in this 23 action, as well as the following sections of each of the defendants' personnel/employee files: 24 - Basic employment history, such as date of hire, position, promotion, etc. 25 - Disciplinary history, including any adverse employment consequences and/or additional training based on failure to 26 satisfactorily perform job duties. - All complaints and grievances regardless of whether they were 27 sustained or resulted in discipline.

28 / / / 1 If any of the documents responsive to this Request are confidential, they should be produced pursuant to the stipulated protective order on file 2 in this case. If further protections are required, an amended protective order may be negotiated by the parties. 3 Initial Response (served November 27, 2023) 4 Defendants object to this request because it is impermissibly 5 compound. Defendants object to “complete training file,” “[b]asic employment history,” “all complaints and grievances, regardless of whether 6 sustained or resulted in discipline” as grossly overbroad, vague and ambiguous, rendering this request as overbroad, vague, ambiguous as 7 phrased. Defendants further object to this request because the definition of the phrase “basic employment history” is vague and ambiguous and does not 8 describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity. Defendants object to this request to the extent that Plaintiff’s request for “complete 9 training file,” “basic employment history,” “disciplinary history” and “all complaints and grievances” encompass different types of documents that 10 have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues before the Court in the present case, are overly broad and lack specificity as to the applicable time period, 11 making this request unduly burdensome, harassing and not reasonably proportional to the needs of this case. See Centeno v. City of Fresno, No. 12 1:16-cv-00653-DAD-SAB, 2016 U.S. Dist. 27 LEXIS 180013, at *16–19 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2016) (stating that disciplinary records or complaints that 13 are sufficiently similar to the claims brought in the underlying lawsuit may be discoverable). Defendants object to this request to the extent the request 14 seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Defendants further object to this request on the 15 grounds that it seeks documents that are protected and privileged by the official-information privilege and Defendants’ constitutional right to privacy. 16 Defendants further object to this request to the extent Plaintiff’s request for “all complaints and grievances” violate the privacy rights of third-party 17 inmates and staff. Subject to and without waiving these objections, upon a reasonable 18 and diligent search, and limiting Defendants’ response to the training files and basic employment history, Defendants respond as follows: Defendants 19 identify Defendants’ Employee History Summary, as CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 05629-05679. Defendants further 20 identify Defendants Ochoa, Zarate, Yocius, Woodruff, Hall, Knedler, M. Kelly, S. Kelly, Hall, Flores and Chandler’s 2022 In-Service Training 21 records as CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 05680-05710. Defendants further identify the training records of Defendant 22 Rice as CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 05711- 05728 and the 2021 training records of Defendant Kibler as 23 CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES’ ONLY AGO DISC 05729-05731. Defendants further respond B. Kibler does not have training records with the 24 institution in 2022, as he retired in 2022. Defendants further state that they have conducted a reasonable and diligent search and located no disciplinary 25 records for Defendants Woodruff, Zarate and Knedler. Defendants have located disciplinary records for Defendants Yocius, M. Kelly, Chandler, 26 Flores, S. Kelly, Hall, Ochoa, Rice and Kibler; however, these records are being withheld based on various privileges. See the attached Privilege Log in 27 support of the privilege documents. Defendants further respond that complaints and grievances are not kept and maintained in the regular course 28 of business in personnel/employee files. Therefore, upon information and 1 belief, there are no complaints and grievances in Defendants’ respective personnel/employee files. 2 Supplemental Response (served November 28, 2023) 3 [Same objections as above]. 4 Subject to and without waiving these objections, upon reasonable and diligent search, and limiting Defendants’ response to the training files and 5 basic employment history, Defendants respond as follows: Defendants identify Defendants’ Employee History Summary, as CONFIDENTIAL- 6 ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 05629-05641, 05649-05679, and 05732-05733. Defendants further identify Defendants Ochoa, Zarate, Yocius, 7 Woodruff, Hall, Knedler, M. Kelly, S. Kelly, Hall, Flores, and Chandler’s 2022 In-Service Training records as CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES 8 ONLY AGO DISC 05680-05710. Defendants further identify the training records of Defendant Rice as CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES 9 ONLY AGO DISC 05711-05728 and the 2021 training records of Defendant Kibler as CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 10 05729-05731. Defendants further state, upon information and belief, that Defendant Kibler does not have training records with the institution in 2022, 11 as he retired that year. Defendants further state that they have conducted a reasonable and diligent search, and upon information and belief, located no 12 disciplinary records for Defendants Woodruff, Zarate and Knedler in their respective personnel files. Defendants have located disciplinary records for 13 Defendants Yocius, M. Kelly, Chandler, Flores, S. Kelly, Hall, Ochoa, Rice, and Kibler; however, these records are being withheld based on various 14 privileges. See the attached Amended Privilege Log in support of the privilege documents. Defendants further respond that complaints and 15 grievances are not kept and maintained in the regular course of business sin personnel/employee files. Therefore, upon information and belief, there are 16 no complaints and grievances in Defendants’ respective personnel/employee files. 17 Further Supplemental Response (served November 13, 2024) 18 [Same objections as above]. 19 Subject to and without waiving these objections, upon a further reasonable and diligent search, and limiting Defendants’ response to the 20 training files, Defendants further respond as follows: Defendants further identify Defendant M. Kelly’s Complete In-Service Training records as 21 CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 06201-06263; Defendant R. Chandler’s Complete In-Service Training Records as 22 CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 06264-06340; Defendant J. Flores’ Complete In-Service Training records as 23 CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 06341-06420; Defendant E. Hall’s Complete In-Service Training records as 24 CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 06421-06481; Defendant S. Kelly’s Complete In-Service Training records as 25 CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 06482-06554; Defendant M. Knedler’s Complete In-Service Training records as 26 CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 06555-06641; Defendant L. Ochoa’s Complete In-Service Training records as 27 CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 06642-06705; Defendant M. Woodruff’s Complete In-Service Training records as 28 CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 06706-06794; 1 Defendant J. Yocius’ Complete In-Service Training records as CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 06795-06865; 2 Defendant M. Zarate’s Complete In-Service Training records as CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 06866-06918; 3 and Defendant B. Kibler’s Complete In-Service Training records as CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 06919-07013. 4 Defendants further state, upon information and belief, that Defendant Kibler does not have training records with the institution in 2022, as he retired that 5 year. Defendants further state that they have conducted a reasonable and diligent search, and upon information and belief, located no disciplinary 6 records for Defendants Woodruff, Zarate and Knedler in their respective personnel files. Defendants have located disciplinary records for Defendants 7 Yocius, M. Kelly, Chandler, Flores, S. Kelly, Hall, Ochoa, Rice and Kibler; however, these records are being withheld based on various privileges. See 8 the previously produced Amended Privilege Log in support of the privileged documents. Defendants further respond that complaints and grievances are 9 not kept and maintained in the regular course of business in personnel/employee files. Therefore, upon information and belief, there are 10 no complaints and grievances in Defendants’ respective personnel/employee files. 11 12 Plaintiff seeks Defendants’ training files and the sections of Defendants' 13 personnel files containing information regarding basic employment history, disciplinary history, 14 and complaints/grievances. Defendants have produced their training files and employment 15 history documents subject to the parties' stipulated protective order. As to documents reflecting 16 disciplinary history, Defendants state that no such records exist for Defendants Woodruff, 17 Zarate, and Knedler. Documents reflecting disciplinary history for Defendants Yocius, M. Kelly, 18 Chandler, Flores, S. Kelly, Hall, Ochoa, Rice, and Kibler were located but not produced based on 19 privilege and Defendants provided privilege logs. Finally, as to documents within Defendants' 20 personnel filed reflecting complaint/grievances, Defendant state that such documents are not 21 maintained within individual personnel files and, as such, no responsive documents exist. 22 Based on Defendants' responses, remaining at issue are documents reflecting 23 disciplinary history which have been withheld based on privilege. In the joint statement, 24 Plaintiff contends that any privileges asserted in Defendants' responses have been waived, 25 except the privacy privilege and official information privilege, because no other privileges were 26 listed in Defendants' privilege logs. See ECF No. 61, pgs. 34. This argument is persuasive. 27 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A); see also Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Company v. 28 U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, 1 because the privilege logs produced by Defendants fail to identify any other privileges, they are 2 waived. 3 Defendants argue in the joint statement that the request is impermissibly 4 overbroad temporally because Plaintiff has not indicated any reasonable time limit and is 5 instead open-ended. See ECF No. 61, pg. 38. While this is true, Defendants did not make this 6 specific objection in any of their responses. 7 As to privileged documents which were withheld, Defendants also argue that 8 documents related to Defendants' disciplinary history are only proportional to the needs of 9 Plaintiff's case where the documents sought relate to incidents sufficiently similar to the 10 incident at issue in the case. See id. at 38-39. This argument is persuasive. Here, Plaintiff's 11 request does not limit the documents sought to only those records of disciplinary action for 12 similar incidents to the incident at issue. The Court finds that an in camera review of withheld 13 documents is not necessary and will deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to request for 14 production no. 15. 15 C. No. 25 16 Request (served July 14, 2023)

17 All documents and materials that reflect, concern, refer to, or relate to any documented incidence of violence against an inmate at High Desert who 18 has been identified and/or designated as a sex offender since the year 2014. 19 Response (served August 10, 2023)

20 Defendants object to this request to the extent the undefined terms “materials,” “incidence of violence” and “sex offender” are vague and 21 ambiguous, rendering this request as vague and ambiguous as phrased. Defendants object to this request because it violates the third-party privacy 22 rights of inmates and others. Defendants object to this request because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as it seeks documents for a period of nine 23 years when this case only involves an incident that occurred on February 18, 2022. Further, this request is so vague and grossly overbroad, that 24 Defendants cannot conduct any meaningful search for records. Specifically, as there is no centralized location where this request can be searched, 25 Plaintiff’s request would require Defendants to review each and every single file of each and every single inmate designated as a sex offender at High 26 Desert State Prison for the span of nine years from 2014 to the present, and then determine if each of these inmate files had any documented “incidence 27 of violence.” This would require the review of potentially tens of thousands of pages of documents to ascertain responsive records. Consequently, such a 28 request is grossly overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. Defendants 1 further object to this request because it calls for information that is not related to the claims and defenses in this case and not proportional to the 2 needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). Finally, Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the official- 3 information privilege; however, due to the vague and overly broad wording of this request, it is not possible to gather and identify which documents are 4 covered by the official-information privilege. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendants respond 5 as follows: for the reasons given in the objections, Defendants are unable to respond to this request. 6 7 The primary objection to this request is that it is burdensome. This argument is 8 persuasive. First, as Defendants note in the joint statement, documents identified in the OIG 9 privilege log are not responsive to request no. 25. Second, as reflected in the declaration of 10 High Desert State Prison's litigation coordinator, there is no centralized location in the prison's 11 database to search for responsive documents. See ECF No. 61, pg. 45 (citing Exhibit 10-C). 12 To locate responsive documents, the litigation coordinator would be required to search each and 13 every inmate file over a nine-year period which would involve hundreds of thousands of pages 14 of documents. See id. Finally, as Defendants note in the joint statement, responsive documents 15 would not show anything relevant as to the individual defendants and would be irrelevant as to 16 the only claim against CDCR for negligence in providing medical care. See id. at 47. 17 Plaintiff's motion to compel will be denied as to request no. 25. 18 D. No. 26 19 Request (served July 14, 2023)

20 All documents and materials that reflect, concern, refer to, or relate to any interviews of former High Desert inmates who were identified and/or 21 designated as a sex offender and who claimed that High Desert staff improperly disclosed or otherwise failed to maintain the 22 privacy/confidentiality of inmate information. 23 Response (served August 10, 2023)

24 Defendants object to this request to the extent the undefined terms “materials” “sex offender,” “High Desert staff,” “failed to maintain” and 25 “inmate information” are vague and ambiguous, rendering this request as vague and ambiguous as phrased. Defendants object to this request because it 26 violates the third-party privacy rights of inmates and others. Defendants object to this request because it is so vague and grossly overbroad, that 27 Defendants cannot conduct any meaningful search for records. Specifically, as there is no centralized location where this request can be searched, 28 Plaintiff’s request would require Defendants to: 1) review each and every 1 single file of each and every inmate who was transferred or released from High Desert State Prison; 2) determine if each of those inmates were 2 designated as a sex offender; and 3) then review each of those files to ascertain whether they provided an interview concerning the improper 3 disclosure of their “privacy” or “confidential information.” As such, this request would require Defendants to review potentially hundreds of 4 thousands of pages of records and then require them to guess or speculate on which grievances constitute complaints or allegations concerning disclosure 5 of private/confidential inmate information. As such this request is grossly overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. Additionally, Defendants 6 object to this request because it calls for information that is not related to the claims and defenses in this case and not proportional to the needs of the case. 7 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). Finally, Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the official-information privilege; 8 however, due to the vague and overly broad wording of this request, it is not possible to gather and identify which documents are covered by the official- 9 information privilege. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendants respond 10 as follows: for the reasons given in the objections, Defendants are unable to respond to this request. 11 12 As with request no. 25, the primary objection to request no. 26 is that it is 13 burdensome. See ECF No. 61, pgs. 54-56 (citing Exhibit 10-C). Based on the litigation 14 coordinator's declaration, Defendants' argument is persuasive. Plaintiff's motion to compel will 15 be denied as to request no. 26. 16 E. No. 31 17 Request (served July 14, 2023)

18 All documents and materials that reflect, concern, refer to, or relate to any current or former High Desert staff member who intentionally or 19 negligently allowed inmates to identify sex offenders since the year 2014. 20 Response (served August 10, 2023)

21 Defendants object to this request to the extent the phrase “intentionally or negligently allowed inmates to identify sex offenders” calls 22 for a legal conclusion. Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that the undefined terms “High Desert staff member” and “allowed” 23 are grossly vague and ambiguous, making this request vague and ambiguous as phrased. Defendants further object to this request because it is so vague 24 and grossly overbroad, that Defendants cannot conduct any meaningful search for records. Specifically, as there is no centralized location where this 25 request can be searched, Plaintiff’s request would require Defendants to review each and every single file of each and every single person employed 26 at High Desert State Prison since 2014 to ascertain whether any responsive documents to such a request exist. This would require the review of 27 potentially hundreds of thousands of pages of documents to ascertain responsive records. Consequently, such a request is grossly overbroad, 28 unduly burdensome, and harassing. Defendants further object to this request 1 because it calls for information that is not related to the claims and defenses in this case and not proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 2 26(b)(1). Defendants object to this request as it violates the privacy rights of third parties and others. Defendants object to this request to the extent it 3 seeks documents protected by the official-information privilege; however, due to the vague and overly broad wording of this request, it is not possible 4 to gather and identify which documents are covered by the official- information privilege. Finally, this request is overbroad and unduly 5 burdensome as it requests information for a period of nine years when this case only involves an incident that occurred on February 18, 2022. 6 Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendants respond as follows: for the reasons given in the objections, Defendants are unable to 7 respond to this request. 8 Again, Defendants' primary objection is that this request is burdensome. The 9 Court agrees. Citing the litigation coordinator's declaration at Exhibit 10-C, Defendants note 10 that locating potentially responsive documents would entail a search of thousands of files of 11 current and former HDSP employees, as well as thousands of files of current and former HDSP 12 inmates over a nine-year period. Additionally, the two groups of documents would need to be 13 cross-checked to see if any current or former inmate complained that a current or former HDSP 14 employee allowed other inmates to identify sex offenders. Plaintiff's motion to compel will be 15 denied as to request no. 31. 16 F. No. 32 17 Request (served July 14, 2023)

18 All documents and materials that reflect, concern, refer to, or relate to High Desert’s efforts to address the concerns and/or recommendations 19 outlined in the Office of the Inspector General’s 2015 Special Review on High Desert State Prison, including, but not limited to, the following 20 recommendations from the Office of the Inspector General: a. Develop a policy authorizing staff to access an inmate’s electronic 21 record on a “need to know” basis only. The policy should add admonishment language to the SOMS login screen, advising against 22 misuse, and the consequence thereof. b. Develop a method of tracking and recording staff access to records in 23 SOMS and other inmate records, and periodically audit access history to identify potential misuse. 24 c. Remove the “R” suffix information from the SOMS header, as any staff specifically needing this information can find it on another 25 screen. d. Conduct an in-depth review of every form and document that 26 currently requires commitment offense information and “R” suffix notations, and remove this requirement from all forms and documents 27 where it no longer serves a legitimate purpose. e. Consider providing inmates with only hard copies of certain portions 28 of nonconfidential documentation from SOMS or other inmate 1 records, to exclude commitment offenses, “R” suffix notations, and any other information that may put an inmate at risk. 2 Response (served August 10, 2023) 3 Defendants object to this request because the undefined term 4 “materials” is vague and ambiguous, rendering this request vague and ambiguous as phrased. Defendants object to this request because it is 5 overbroad in time and in scope. Defendants further object to this request because it calls for information that is not related to the claims and defenses 6 in this case and not proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks documents 7 protected by the official-information privilege; however, due to the vague and overly broad wording of this request, it is not possible to gather and 8 identify which documents are covered by the official-information privilege. Subject to and without waiving these objections, and after a reasonable and 9 diligent search, Defendants respond as follows: Defendants have not located any responsive documents to this request to date. However, Defendants are 10 continuing to search for documents responsive to this request and will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents as they are discovered. 11 Fact discovery continues. 12 Supplemental Response (served September 20, 2023)

13 Defendants incorporate by reference their prior response and objections asserted by Defendants in response to this request. This 14 supplemental response is intended only to supplement Defendants’ prior response to this request and does not in any way replace or supersede 15 Defendants’ prior response and objections. Subject to and without waiving all prior objections asserted by 16 Defendants in response to this request, and expressly reasserting the prior response and objections, Defendants respond as follows: after a reasonable 17 and diligent search, upon information and belief, Defendants do not have responsive records to this request in their possession, custody or control. 18 Further Supplemental Response (served May 21, 2024) 19 Defendants incorporate by reference their prior response and 20 objections asserted by Defendants in response to this request. This supplemental response is intended only to supplement Defendants’ prior 21 response to this request and does not in any way replace or supersede Defendants’ prior response and objections. 22 Subject to and without waiving any prior objections asserted by Defendants in response to this request, and expressly reasserting the prior 23 response and objections, Defendants respond as follows: After a further diligent search and making a reasonable inquiry, Defendants further identify 24 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Corrective Action Plan - Office of the Inspector General: Special Review – High Desert 25 State Prison (December 2016 One Year CAP Update) as CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY AGO DISCO 05935- 05937; and the 26 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Corrective Action Plan - Office of the Inspector General: Special Review – High Desert State 27 Prison (December 16, 2015) as CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY AGO DISCO 05938-05941. Upon information and belief, and after 28 conducting a further diligent search and making a reasonable inquiry, 1 Defendants are not aware of any other documents responsive to this request in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control. 2 3 Here, Defendants have produced responsive documents subject to the parties' 4 stipulated protective order and indicated that further responsive documents are not in their 5 possession, custody, or control. As with request no. 16, Plaintiff's various arguments 6 concerning request no. 32 are now moot because Defendants have produced all responsive 7 documents. Plaintiff's motion will be denied as to request no. 32. 8 G. No. 17 9 Request (served July 14, 2023)

10 All documents, records, materials, and information that reflect, concern, or relate to any prospective risk-management plan or analysis 11 instituted or performed concerning inmate violence and deaths at High Desert since the year 2014. 12 Response (served August 10, 2023) 13 Defendants object to the undefined terms “materials,” “information,” 14 “prospective risk-management,” “analysis,” “inmate violence and deaths” because they are vague and ambiguous, rendering this request vague and 15 ambiguous as phrased. Defendants object to this request because it does not describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity, requiring 16 Defendants to guess or speculate on the meaning of the request, which Defendants are not required to do. Significantly, it is unclear what is meant 17 by “inmate violence,” as there are various meanings of this term in a prison setting including inmate gang violence, inmate battery on staff, inmate-self 18 injury, etc. Similarly, the term “deaths” is vague and grossly overbroad, as there are various meanings of the term in a prison setting, including death by 19 suicide, death by illness, death by homicide, etc. As such, this request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and not proportional to the 20 needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). [Defendants] further object to this request because it is overbroad in time as it seeks documents for a period 21 of nine years when this case only involves an incident that occurred on February 18, 2022. Finally, Defendants object to this request to the extent it 22 seeks documents protected by the official-information privilege; however, due to the vague and overly broad wording of this request, it is not possible 23 to gather and identify which documents are covered by the official- information privilege. 24 Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendants respond as follows: as virtually every single policy CDCR implemented is to limit 25 violence and death within its institutions, Defendants are unable to conduct a meaningful search for responsive records to this request. 26

27 / / /

28 / / / 1 Supplemental Response (served November 13, 2024)

2 [Same objections as above]. Subject to and without waiving these objections, and expressly 3 reasserting the prior response and objections, Defendants further respond as follows: Based on Defendants’ interpretation and understanding of Plaintiff’s 4 request, Defendants identify the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Corrective Action Plan - Office of the Inspector General: 5 Special Review – High Desert State Prison (December 16, 2015) regarding Sensitive Needs Yard (SNY) as CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES 6 ONLY AGO DISC 05942-05945; the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Corrective Action Plan - Office of the Inspector General: 7 Special Review – High Desert State Prison (December 2016 One Year CAP Update) regarding SNY as CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY 8 AGO DISC 05946-05949; and Memorandum regarding Inmate Housing Assignment Considerations During the Screening and Housing Process 9 (January 19, 2016) as CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 05950-05952. 10 11 As with request nos. 16 and 32, Defendants have produced responsive 12 documents, rendering Plaintiff's arguments moot. Plaintiff's motion will be denied as to request 13 no. 17. 14 H. No. 6 15 Request (served July 14, 2023)

16 All documents, records, materials, and information that reflect, concern, or relate to any standards, customs, policies, protocols, procedures, 17 guidelines, and training concerning the classification, placement, housing, and transfer of CDCR inmates since the year 2014. 18 Response (served August 10, 2023) 19 Defendants object to the undefined terms “materials,” “information,” 20 “customs,” “classification, placement, housing and transfer of CDCR inmates,” because they are vague and ambiguous, rendering this request 21 vague and ambiguous as phrased. Specifically, there are numerous meanings for the terms “classification,” “placement,” “housing” and “transfer” with 22 respect to CDCR inmates. For example, there might be different policies and protocols for the transfer of inmates due to a COVID-19 outbreak, or because 23 an inmate was transferred from a Level IV to a lower level prison because they programmed successfully. Further, there may be various protocols and 24 guidelines for the housing of inmates who, for example, require a single cell or require a lower as opposed to an upper bunk due to certain medical needs. 25 Therefore, Defendants object to this request because it does not describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity and would require 26 Defendants to guess or speculate on the meaning of the request, which Defendants are not required to do. Consequently, such a request is grossly 27 overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). Finally, Defendants object to this request 28 because it is overbroad in time and unduly burdensome as it seeks documents 1 for a period of nine years when this case only involves an incident that occurred on February 18, 2022. 2 Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendants respond as follows: because this request is so grossly overbroad and Defendants do 3 not understand what Plaintiffs are asking for, Defendants are unable to respond to this request. 4 5 In the joint statement, Defendants ask the Court to defer ruling on this request as 6 the parties' meet-and-confer efforts are ongoing. See ECF No. 61, pg. 78. Specifically, 7 Defendants have asked Plaintiff to narrow the request. See id. Defendants' contention is well- 8 taken as the request is overbroad and not proportional. Plaintiff states in the joint statement that 9 the documents sought are relevant to show whether there were any policies related to the 10 classification of "inmates with Michael's risk factors." Id. at 76. The request, however, as 11 currently drafted, does not limit the universe of responsive documents to those relating to 12 classification of inmates with similar risk factors to those of Michael Hastey. Plaintiff's motion 13 to compel will be denied as to request no. 6. 14 I. No. 19 15 Request (served July 14, 2023

16 All organizational charts and other documents that reflect the organizational/employment structure and chain of command at High Desert 17 since the year 2014. 18 Response (served August 10, 2023)

19 Defendants object to the undefined terms “all organizational charts,” “other documents” and “employment structure” because they are vague and 20 ambiguous, rendering this request vague and ambiguous as phrased. Defendants object to this request because it is not described with reasonable 21 particularity, requiring Defendants to guess or speculate on the meaning of this request, which Defendants are not required to do. Specifically, there is 22 no blanket “organizational chart” that identifies the chain of command at High Desert State Prison as each position at CDCR has its own respective 23 chain of command. For example, a Treatment Triage Area staff nurse has a different chain of command in comparison to a correctional yard officer 24 who works on Facility C, at High Desert State Prison. Therefore, Defendants object to this request because it is grossly overbroad, unduly 25 burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Defendants further object to this request because it is overbroad in 26 time as it seeks documents for a period of nine years when this case only involves an incident that occurred on February 18, 2022. 27 Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendants respond as follows: for the reasons given in the objections, Defendants are unable to 28 respond to this request. 1 Supplemental Response (served November 13, 2024)

2 [Same objections as above]. Subject to and without waiving these objections, and expressly 3 reasserting the prior response and objections, Defendants further respond as follows: Based on Defendants’ interpretation and understanding of Plaintiff’s 4 request, Defendants identify the High Desert State Prison Organizational Chart for 2014-2015 as CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY 5 AGO DISC 05953-05983; the High Desert State Prison Organizational Chart for 2015-2016 as CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO 6 DISC 05984-06013; the High Desert State Prison Organizational Chart for 2016-2017 as CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 7 06014-06044; the High Desert State Prison Organizational Chart for 2018- 2019 as CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 8 06045-06074; the High Desert State Prison Organizational Chart for 2019- 2020 as CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 9 06075-06104; the High Desert State Prison Organizational Chart for 2020- 2021 as CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 10 06105-06134; the High Desert State Prison Organizational Chart for 2023- 2024 as CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 11 06135-06167; and the High Desert State Prison Organizational Chart for 2024-2025 as CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY AGO DISC 12 06168-06200. Upon information and belief, and after conducting a further diligent search and making a reasonable inquiry, Defendants are not aware of 13 any other documents responsive to this request in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control. 14 15 As with request nos. 16, 17, and 32, Defendants have produced responsive 16 documents subject to the parties' stipulated protective order, rendering Plaintiff's arguments 17 moot. At the hearing, Defendants’ counsel indicated that their search continues for responsive 18 documents for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 time periods. The Court directed the parties to 19 continue their meet-and-confer process and ordered Defendants to produce responsive 20 documents, subject to the protective order, for these time periods, within 90 days. The parties 21 were again reminded of their continuing disclosure obligations under Rule 26. The 90-day 22 period has passed, and no further court intervention has been sought regarding this request. 23 Plaintiff's motion to compel will now be denied as moot as to request no. 19. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 J. No. 20 2 Request (served July 14, 2023

3 All documents and materials that reflect, concern, refer to, or relate to any internal budget for operations or services concerning inmate medical and 4 mental health care at High Desert since the year 2014. 5 Response (served August 10, 2023)

6 Defendants object to the undefined terms “materials,” “internal budget for operations or services,” and “inmate medical and mental health 7 care” because they are vague and ambiguous, rendering this request vague and ambiguous as phrased. Defendants object to this request because it is not 8 described with reasonable particularity, requiring Defendants to guess or speculate on the meaning of this request, which Defendants are not required 9 to do. Specifically, there are various budgets for various facets of medical and mental health care provided by CDCR to inmates at High Desert State 10 Prison. For example, there are separate internal budgets for medical staff pay, medical transportation of inmates, inmate durable medical equipment, inmate 11 mental health care in mental health crisis bed, etc. Therefore, Defendants object to this request because it is grossly overbroad, unduly burdensome, 12 and not proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). Defendants further object to this request because it is overbroad in time as it 13 seeks documents for a period of nine years when this case only involves an incident that occurred on February 18, 2022. 14 Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendants respond as follows: for the reasons given in the objections, Defendants are unable to 15 respond to this request. 16 Defendants' primary objection to this request is that it is too vague and overbroad 17 to allow for a meaningful search of potentially responsive documents. See ECF No. 61, pgs. 18 90-91. As Defendants note in their response, there are various types of budgets related to 19 medical care of inmates at HDSP and Plaintiff's request is not specific as to the type of 20 budgeting materials sought. The Court agrees that, as currently drafted, this request is indeed 21 overbroad and vague. Plaintiff's motion to compel will be denied as to request no. 20. 22 K. No. 12 23 Request (served July 14, 2023)

24 All documents, records, materials, and information that reflect, concern, or relate to the prevalence and/or activities of the Aryan 25 Brotherhood, or any associated or affiliated gangs, at High Desert since the year 2014. 26 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Response (served August 10, 2023)

2 Defendants object to the undefined terms “materials,” “information,” “prevalence” “activities” and “associated or affiliated gangs” because they 3 are vague and ambiguous, rendering this request vague and ambiguous as phrased. Defendants object to this request because it violates the third-party 4 privacy rights of inmates and others. Defendants object to this request because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as it seeks documents for a 5 period of nine years when this case only involves an incident that occurred on February 18, 2022. Finally, Defendants object to this request to the extent 6 it seeks documents protected by the official-information privilege; however, due to the vague and overly broad wording of this request, it is not possible 7 to gather and identify which documents are covered by the official- information privilege. 8 Subject to and without waiving these objections, and after a reasonable and diligent search, Defendants respond as follows: Defendants 9 do not have responsive records to this request. 10 Supplemental Response (served September 20, 2023)

11 Defendants incorporate by reference their prior response and objections asserted by Defendants in response to this request. This 12 supplemental response is intended only to supplement Defendants’ prior response to this request and does not in any way replace or supersede 13 Defendants’ prior response and objections. Subject to and without waiving all prior objections asserted by 14 Defendants in response to this request, and expressly reasserting the prior response and objections, Defendants respond as follows: after a reasonable 15 and diligent search, upon information and belief, Defendants do not have responsive records to this request in their possession, custody or control. 16 Further Supplemental Response (served October 18, 2023) 17 Defendants incorporate by reference their prior response and 18 objections asserted by Defendants in response to this request. This supplemental response is intended only to supplement Defendants’ prior 19 response to this request and does not in any way replace or supersede Defendants’ prior response and objections. 20 Subject to and without waiving all prior objections asserted by Defendants in response to this request, and expressly reasserting the prior 21 objections, upon a reasonable and diligent search, Defendants state the following: while Defendants do not have responsive documents that identify 22 the “prevalence” or activities of the Aryan Brotherhood at HDSP generally, Defendants identify CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY AGO 23 DISC 04593-05122, to the extent these documents identify specific inmates and Aryan Brotherhood and other white supremacy gang activities at HDSP. 24 25 As with request nos. 16, 17, 32, and 19, Defendants have produced responsive 26 documents subject to the parties' stipulated protective order, rendering Plaintiff's arguments 27 moot. Plaintiff's motion to compel will be denied as to request no. 12. 28 / / / 1 L. No. 21 2 Request (served July 14, 2023)

3 All documents and materials that reflect, concern, refer to, or relate to any complaint and/or allegation that correctional officers or other CDCR 4 staff cooperated, colluded, or carried on improper relationships/ associations with inmates at High Desert since the year 2014. 5 Response (served August 10, 2023) 6 Defendants object to the undefined terms “materials,” “any complaint 7 and/or allegation,” and “improper relationships/associations,” because they are vague and ambiguous, rendering this request vague and ambiguous as 8 phrased. Defendants object to this request because it does not describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity, requiring Defendants to 9 guess or speculate on the meaning of the request, which Defendants are not required to do. As there is no centralized location where these records can be 10 located, this request would require Defendants to literally review each and every single inmate file at High Desert State Prison for the span of nine years 11 from 2014 to the present, including formerly incarcerated individuals and inmates who are no longer housed at the facility, requiring Defendants to 12 review potentially hundreds of thousands of pages of records and then require them to guess or speculate on which grievances constitute complaints 13 of CDCR staff cooperating, colluding or carrying an “an improper relationship/ association” with any inmate. Consequently, such a request is 14 grossly overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing and not proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). Defendants further object to 15 this request because it violates the third-party privacy rights of inmates and others. Finally, Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks 16 documents protected by the official-information privilege; however, due to the vague and overly broad wording of this request, it is not possible to 17 gather and identify which documents are covered by the official-information privilege. 18 Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendants respond as follows: for the reasons given in the objections, Defendants are unable to 19 respond to this request. 20 Defendants' objection is well-taken. Specifically, the phrase "improper 21 relationships/associations" is highly vague and does not allow Defendants to conduct a 22 meaningful or reasonable search for potentially responsive documents. Plaintiff's motion to 23 compel will be denied as to request no. 21. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 M. No. 22 2 Request (served July 14, 2023)

3 All documents and materials that reflect, concern, refer to, or relate to any complaint, allegation and/or investigation concerning the improper 4 disclosure of private/confidential inmate information at High Desert since the year 2014. 5 Response (served August 10, 2023) 6 Defendants object to the undefined terms “materials,” “complaint,” 7 “allegation,” “investigation,” and “improper disclosure of private/ confidential inmate information” because they are vague and ambiguous, 8 rendering this request vague and ambiguous as phrased. Defendants object to this request because it does not describe the documents sought with 9 reasonable particularity, requiring Defendants to guess or speculate on the meaning of the request, which Defendants are not required to do. As there is 10 no centralized location where these records can be located, this request would require Defendants to literally review each and every single inmate 11 file at High Desert State Prison for the span of nine years from 2014 to the present, including formerly incarcerated individuals and inmates who are no 12 longer housed at the facility, requiring Defendants to review potentially hundreds of thousands of pages of records and then require them to guess or 13 speculate on which grievances constitute complaints or allegations concerning “disclosure of private/confidential inmate information.” 14 Consequently, such a request is grossly overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing and not proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15 26(b)(1). Defendants further object to this request because it violates the third-party privacy rights of inmates and others. Finally, Defendants object to 16 this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the official- information privilege; however, due to the vague and overly broad wording 17 of this request, it is not possible to gather and identify which documents are covered by the official-information privilege. 18 Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendants respond as follows: for the reasons given in the objections, Defendants are unable to 19 respond to this request. 20 Relying again on the HDSP litigation coordinator's declaration at Exhibit 10-C, 21 Defendants argue that the request is overly burdensome because there is no way short of 22 reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents to locate potentially responsive documents. See 23 ECF No. 61, pg. 109. This argument is persuasive. Plaintiff's motion will be denied as to 24 request no. 22. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Il. CONCLUSION 2 At the hearing in December 2024, the Court instructed Plaintiff to recraft and, if 3 || necessary, reserve the discovery requests at issue, within 90 days. The Court also directed the 4 || parties to continue their meet-and-confer efforts and, if disputes remained, to contact the Court 5 || for an informal discovery conference, again within 90 days. To date, the parties have not 6 || sought any informal discovery conference, indicating that the parties’ continued efforts to 7 || resolve their disagreements informally have been fruitful. The Court also notes that the parties 8 | recently filed a stipulation to extend scheduling deadlines in this case and did not seek an 9 || extension of the current May 19, 2025, fact discovery cut-off date. In the context of this case 10 || history since the hearing, the Court will deny the pending motion to compel. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel, ECF 12 || No. 55, is DENIED. 13 14 | Dated: March 12, 2025 Ss..c0_, 15 DENNIS M. COTA 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23