1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN F. GOODLOW, Case No.: 3:24-cv-1490-AJB-SBC
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTIONS TO COMPEL, FOR EXTENSION, AND APPOINTMENT 14 K. ESTRADA,
15 Defendant. [Dkt. Nos. 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36] 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff Ivan F. Goodlow (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 20 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 21 against Defendant K. Estrada for alleged excessive force in violation of the Eighth 22 Amendment arising from an incident on April 23, 2024. 23 Pursuant to the Court’s November 20, 2025, Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery 24 and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings, the deadline to complete fact discovery was April 10, 25 2026. (Dkt. No. 17.) 26 On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of the Rules 27 Violation Report (“RVR”) and a CDCR Form 7219 medical report (“7219”) related to the 28 incident. (Dkt. No. 22.) That same day, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time for 1 production. (Dkt. No. 23.) Plaintiff filed an additional motion for extension of time on 2 February 20, 2026. (Dkt. No. 25.) On February 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel 3 production of body-worn camera footage. (Dkt. No. 26.) Defendant filed a response on 4 February 27, 2026. (Dkt. No. 24.) 5 The Court held a status conference on March 3, 2026, at which Plaintiff’s requests 6 were discussed. (Dkt. No. 27.) The Court directed Defendant to provide a status update 7 regarding Plaintiff’s requests by March 24, 2026. (Id.) 8 On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed an additional motion to compel body-worn camera 9 footage. (Dkt. No. 28.) Defendant responded on March 17, 2026, representing that it was 10 investigating the availability of the footage. 11 Defendant provided an initial status update on March 17, 2026, and a second update 12 on April 8, 2026, via email. In the March 17, 2026, update Defendant stated that it was 13 continuing to investigate the availability of the footage. In the April 8, 2026, update, 14 Defendant reported that Plaintiff had been provided with the RVR and that the requested 15 body-worn camera footage was no longer available due to routine overwrite procedures. 16 The update included a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, from the acting 17 Litigation Coordinator at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility stating that all available 18 footage had been provided to the Office of the Attorney General and that no additional 19 footage exists. 20 On March 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting appointment of a video expert 21 and a private investigator. (Dkt. Nos. 32, 33.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to compel 22 responses to interrogatories on March 23, 2026 (Dkt. No. 31), and a related motion on 23 March 30, 2026 (Dkt. No. 30). Defendant opposed these motions on April 16, 2026, stating 24 that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer and that Defendant’s responses and objections to 25 the interrogatories were sufficient. (Dkt. No. 34.) On April 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a 26 motion to compel all internal affairs recordings and video footage of the incident. (Dkt. 27 No. 36.) 28 1 Accordingly, before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for extensions of discovery 2 (Dkt. Nos. 23, 25), motions to compel (Dkt. Nos. 22, 26, 28, 30, 31, 36), and motions for 3 appointment of experts (Dkt. Nos. 32, 33.) The Court finds these matters suitable for 4 disposition without further briefing. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). 5 6 II. Plaintiff’s Requests for Extension of Discovery 7 Plaintiff seeks extensions of time to obtain the RVR and the 7219. (Dkt. Nos. 23, 8 25.) Because Defendant has produced the RVR, the requests for extension as to that 9 document are DENIED AS MOOT. 10 However, Defendant’s April 8, 2026, status report does not address the 7219. In light 11 of this omission, and good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s requests are GRANTED as to the 12 7219. Accordingly, the fact discovery deadline is extended to May 29, 2026, for the limited 13 purpose of permitting Plaintiff to obtain the 7219. 14 15 III. Plaintiff’s Requests to Compel 16 a. RVR and 7219 (Dkt. No. 22) 17 Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. The motion 18 is denied as to the RVR, which Defendant has already produced. However, because 19 Defendant has not addressed the 7219, the motion is granted as to that document. 20 Defendant shall produce the 7219 to Plaintiff by May 29, 2026. 21 b. Body-Worn Camera Footage (Dkt. Nos. 26, 28, 36) 22 Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED. Defendant submitted a declaration from J. Hawley, 23 Acting Litigation Coordinator at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, stating under 24 penalty of perjury that all available footage has been produced and that any remaining 25 footage has been overwritten pursuant to standard procedures. Plaintiff has not provided 26 evidence to the contrary. The incident occurred on April 23, 2024, and the standard 27 overwrite is 90 days. That means that Plaintiff had until July 22, 2024, to submit his request 28 for preservation of the video footage. The Complaint was not filed until August 19, 2024, 1 (Dkt. No. 1), and Plaintiff does not offer any evidence of an earlier complaint that would 2 have put Defendant on notice to retain the footage. 3 c. Interrogatories (Dkt. Nos. 30, 31) 4 Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED. Plaintiff does not substantively explain why 5 Defendant’s responses are deficient. Defendant, in opposition, argues that the 6 interrogatories are vague and improperly structured and that its objections are proper. (Dkt. 7 No. 34.) The Court finds no basis to compel further responses. 8 9 IV. Plaintiff’s Requests for Appointment of Expert Witnesses 10 Federal Rule of Evidence 706 permits a court, in its discretion, to appoint a neutral 11 expert witness. Fed. R. Evid. 706(a); Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability 12 Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999). Such appointment may be appropriate where 13 “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier-of-fact to 14 understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue.” Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358- 15 59 (7th Cir. 1997). 16 However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which authorizes a petitioner’s in forma pauperis status, 17 does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for expert witnesses. See 28 U.S.C. § 18 1915; Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (expenditure of 19 public funds on behalf of indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress); 20 Boring v. Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468, 474 (3d Cir. 1987) (no provision to pay fees for 21 expert witnesses). An indigent prisoner litigant must bear his or her own costs of litigation, 22 including witnesses. See, e.g., Tedder, 890 F.2d at 211.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN F. GOODLOW, Case No.: 3:24-cv-1490-AJB-SBC
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTIONS TO COMPEL, FOR EXTENSION, AND APPOINTMENT 14 K. ESTRADA,
15 Defendant. [Dkt. Nos. 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36] 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff Ivan F. Goodlow (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 20 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 21 against Defendant K. Estrada for alleged excessive force in violation of the Eighth 22 Amendment arising from an incident on April 23, 2024. 23 Pursuant to the Court’s November 20, 2025, Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery 24 and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings, the deadline to complete fact discovery was April 10, 25 2026. (Dkt. No. 17.) 26 On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of the Rules 27 Violation Report (“RVR”) and a CDCR Form 7219 medical report (“7219”) related to the 28 incident. (Dkt. No. 22.) That same day, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time for 1 production. (Dkt. No. 23.) Plaintiff filed an additional motion for extension of time on 2 February 20, 2026. (Dkt. No. 25.) On February 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel 3 production of body-worn camera footage. (Dkt. No. 26.) Defendant filed a response on 4 February 27, 2026. (Dkt. No. 24.) 5 The Court held a status conference on March 3, 2026, at which Plaintiff’s requests 6 were discussed. (Dkt. No. 27.) The Court directed Defendant to provide a status update 7 regarding Plaintiff’s requests by March 24, 2026. (Id.) 8 On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed an additional motion to compel body-worn camera 9 footage. (Dkt. No. 28.) Defendant responded on March 17, 2026, representing that it was 10 investigating the availability of the footage. 11 Defendant provided an initial status update on March 17, 2026, and a second update 12 on April 8, 2026, via email. In the March 17, 2026, update Defendant stated that it was 13 continuing to investigate the availability of the footage. In the April 8, 2026, update, 14 Defendant reported that Plaintiff had been provided with the RVR and that the requested 15 body-worn camera footage was no longer available due to routine overwrite procedures. 16 The update included a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, from the acting 17 Litigation Coordinator at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility stating that all available 18 footage had been provided to the Office of the Attorney General and that no additional 19 footage exists. 20 On March 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting appointment of a video expert 21 and a private investigator. (Dkt. Nos. 32, 33.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to compel 22 responses to interrogatories on March 23, 2026 (Dkt. No. 31), and a related motion on 23 March 30, 2026 (Dkt. No. 30). Defendant opposed these motions on April 16, 2026, stating 24 that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer and that Defendant’s responses and objections to 25 the interrogatories were sufficient. (Dkt. No. 34.) On April 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a 26 motion to compel all internal affairs recordings and video footage of the incident. (Dkt. 27 No. 36.) 28 1 Accordingly, before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for extensions of discovery 2 (Dkt. Nos. 23, 25), motions to compel (Dkt. Nos. 22, 26, 28, 30, 31, 36), and motions for 3 appointment of experts (Dkt. Nos. 32, 33.) The Court finds these matters suitable for 4 disposition without further briefing. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). 5 6 II. Plaintiff’s Requests for Extension of Discovery 7 Plaintiff seeks extensions of time to obtain the RVR and the 7219. (Dkt. Nos. 23, 8 25.) Because Defendant has produced the RVR, the requests for extension as to that 9 document are DENIED AS MOOT. 10 However, Defendant’s April 8, 2026, status report does not address the 7219. In light 11 of this omission, and good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s requests are GRANTED as to the 12 7219. Accordingly, the fact discovery deadline is extended to May 29, 2026, for the limited 13 purpose of permitting Plaintiff to obtain the 7219. 14 15 III. Plaintiff’s Requests to Compel 16 a. RVR and 7219 (Dkt. No. 22) 17 Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. The motion 18 is denied as to the RVR, which Defendant has already produced. However, because 19 Defendant has not addressed the 7219, the motion is granted as to that document. 20 Defendant shall produce the 7219 to Plaintiff by May 29, 2026. 21 b. Body-Worn Camera Footage (Dkt. Nos. 26, 28, 36) 22 Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED. Defendant submitted a declaration from J. Hawley, 23 Acting Litigation Coordinator at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, stating under 24 penalty of perjury that all available footage has been produced and that any remaining 25 footage has been overwritten pursuant to standard procedures. Plaintiff has not provided 26 evidence to the contrary. The incident occurred on April 23, 2024, and the standard 27 overwrite is 90 days. That means that Plaintiff had until July 22, 2024, to submit his request 28 for preservation of the video footage. The Complaint was not filed until August 19, 2024, 1 (Dkt. No. 1), and Plaintiff does not offer any evidence of an earlier complaint that would 2 have put Defendant on notice to retain the footage. 3 c. Interrogatories (Dkt. Nos. 30, 31) 4 Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED. Plaintiff does not substantively explain why 5 Defendant’s responses are deficient. Defendant, in opposition, argues that the 6 interrogatories are vague and improperly structured and that its objections are proper. (Dkt. 7 No. 34.) The Court finds no basis to compel further responses. 8 9 IV. Plaintiff’s Requests for Appointment of Expert Witnesses 10 Federal Rule of Evidence 706 permits a court, in its discretion, to appoint a neutral 11 expert witness. Fed. R. Evid. 706(a); Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability 12 Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999). Such appointment may be appropriate where 13 “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier-of-fact to 14 understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue.” Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358- 15 59 (7th Cir. 1997). 16 However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which authorizes a petitioner’s in forma pauperis status, 17 does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for expert witnesses. See 28 U.S.C. § 18 1915; Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (expenditure of 19 public funds on behalf of indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress); 20 Boring v. Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468, 474 (3d Cir. 1987) (no provision to pay fees for 21 expert witnesses). An indigent prisoner litigant must bear his or her own costs of litigation, 22 including witnesses. See, e.g., Tedder, 890 F.2d at 211. 23 Furthermore, although a court may apportion costs for the expert witnesses among 24 the parties including apportionment of costs to one side, where the cost would likely be 25 apportioned to the state, the court should exercise caution. Fed. R. Evid. 706; Ford ex rel. 26 Ford v. Long Beach Unified School Dist., 291 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002); Walker, 180 27 F.3d at 1071 28 1 Plaintiff appears to seek appointment of a video expert to evaluate potential 2 tampering and a private investigator to develop his case. Federal Rule of Evidence 706 3 does not authorize the court to appoint and compensate an expert witness as an advocate 4 for a party. Brooks v. Tate, 2013 WL 4049043, *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2013) (denying 5 appointment of medical expert on behalf of state prisoner in section 1983 action); See v. 6 Rivas, No. 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM (PC), 2025 WL 1073241 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2025) 7 (same re video expert); Gorrell v. Sneath, 2013 WL 3357646, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2013) 8 (purpose of court-appointed expert is to assist the trier of fact, not to serve as an advocate 9 for a particular party). 10 Plaintiff does not specify whether the requested expert witnesses are intended to 11 assist Plaintiff in prosecuting this action or to help the Court understand the evidence. To 12 the extent Plaintiff seeks experts to assist in prosecuting this action, the request is improper. 13 To the extent Plaintiff seeks appointment of a neutral expert for the Court’s benefit, the 14 Court finds that the issues presented are not so complex as to warrant such appointment. 15 Accordingly, the requests are DENIED. 16 17 V. Order 18 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 19 1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 22) is DENIED IN PART AND 20 GRANTED IN PART; 21 2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Dkt. No. 23) is DENIED IN PART 22 AND GRANTED IN PART; 23 3. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Dkt. No. 25) is DENIED IN PART 24 AND GRANTED IN PART; 25 4. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production (Dkt. No. 26) is DENIED; 26 5. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production (Dkt. No. 28) is DENIED; 27 6. Plaintiff’s motion to compel response (Dkt. No. 30) is DENIED; 28 7. Plaintiff’s motion to compel response (Dkt. No. 31) is DENIED; l 8. Plaintiff's motion to appoint a video expert (Dkt. No. 32) is DENIED; 2 9. Plaintiff's motion to appoint a private investigator (Dkt. No. 33) is DENIED; 3 and 4 10.Plaintiff's motion to compel production (Dkt. No. 36) is DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: May 4, 2026 7 AEF A. 9 Hon. SteveB.Chu United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28