1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AKIVA A. ISRAEL, No. 2: 21-cv-1267 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RUBY CARTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 53.) 19 For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 20 Background 21 To put the motion to compel in context, the undersigned herein sets forth the claims on 22 which this action proceeds. 23 This action proceeds on the second amended complaint against defendant Ruby Carter as 24 to claims one and two. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff alleges that on August 18, 2020, defendant Carter 25 violated the Eighth Amendment by denying plaintiff Mirtazapine and Hydroxyzine. (Id.) 26 Plaintiff alleges that as a result of not receiving her medication, her mental and medical 27 conditions deteriorated and she suffered suicidal ideation. (Id.) 28 The alleged deprivations occurred at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”). 1 Legal Standard for Motion to Compel 2 The scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) is broad. 3 Discovery may be obtained as to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 4 defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within 5 this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. The court, 6 however, may limit discovery if it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained 7 from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;” or if the 8 party who seeks discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery;” 9 or if “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 26(b)(2)(C). 11 “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request 12 satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).” Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 1390794, at 13 *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (citations omitted). “Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has 14 the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, 15 explaining or supporting its objections.” Id. The opposing party “has the burden to show that 16 discovery should not be allowed…” DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 17 2002). 18 Clarification of At-Issue Discovery Requests 19 In the motion to compel, plaintiff does not clearly identify the at-issue discovery requests. 20 However, plaintiff alleges that she notified defendant that the responses to interrogatories nos. 7-8 21 and request for production of documents nos. 1-3, 6-7, 9-12 were insufficient. (ECF No. 53 at 3.) 22 Plaintiff only addresses defendant’s responses to her request for production of documents. 23 Accordingly, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s motion to compel concerns only request for 24 production of documents nos. 1-3, 6-7 and 9-12. Defendant also interpreted the motion to compel 25 to address these requests.1 26 //// 27 1 Plaintiff did not dispute defendant’s interpretation of the motion to compel as addressing 28 request for production of documents nos. 1-3, 6-7 and 9-12. 1 Request No. 1 2 Request no. 1 sought, 3 Any and all grievances, complaints, or other documents received by prison staff or CDCR agents at Mule Creek or CDCR generally 4 concerning the mistreatment and/or improper medical conduct by Defendant Carter, and any memoranda, investigative files, or other 5 documents created in response to such complaints since January 1, 2000. 6 7 ECF No. 53 at 37.) 8 Defendant responded, 9 Objection. The request for all grievances and complaints received by prison staff or CDCR agents at Mule Creek or CDCR concerning 10 mistreatment and or improper medical conduct by defendant Carter is overbroad as to scope and time, not relevant to the claims and 11 defenses in this case, is unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case, and invasive of the privacy rights of defendant 12 and any inmates who may have submitted complaints. The request further violates the official information privilege and seeks personal 13 and private information of staff members or materials that constitutes personnel information, which is confidential. (Cal. Code of Regs., 14 tit. 15, §§ 3321, 3450, & 3370.) Without waiving these objections, defendants state: all relevant, unprivileged responsive documents in 15 their possession, custody or control will be produced. 16 (Id. at 38.) 17 The undersigned finds that the documents sought in request no. 1 regarding grievances, 18 complaints or other documents concerning alleged inadequate medical care provided by 19 defendant Carter to other inmates are not relevant to this action. The issues in this action are 20 solely related to defendant Carter’s actions taken toward plaintiff, therefore making defendant 21 Carter’s treatment of other inmates not relevant. Brooks v. Tate, 2013 WL 4049058, at *2 (E.D. 22 Cal. Aug. 7, 2013) (third-party prisoner complaints alleging inadequate medical care not relevant 23 to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff); Gallagher v. Department of 24 Corrections, 2017 WL 347467, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 24, 2017) (“The facts and circumstances 25 of each inmate’s medical condition are different, and therefore, whether or not a particular inmate 26 filed a grievance as to his medical condition is not relevant to this case.”). 27 Moreover, assuming the relevancy of the documents sought in request no. 1, the request is 28 overbroad because it seeks documents from January 1, 2000, to the present. The alleged 1 deprivation in this action occurred on August 18, 2020. The request for documents going back 20 2 years from the alleged deprivation is overbroad. 3 For the reasons discussed above, the motion to compel as to request no. 1 is denied.2 4 Request No. 2 5 Request no. 2 sought, “Any and all policies, directives or instructions to staff concerning 6 the complete care model governing healthcare operations at Mule Creek State Prison.” (ECF No. 7 53 at 38.) 8 Defendant responded, 9 Objection. The request for all policies, directives, or instructions to staff concerning the complete care model governing healthcare 10 operations at Mule Creek State Prison is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that there are many policies and procedures 11 concerning inmate healthcare provided by Mule Creek State Prison. 12 Subject to and without waiving objection, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), a copy of the California Department of 13 Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Correctional Health Care Services, Health Care Department Operations Manual section 3.2.1, 14 Article 2-Pharmacy and Medication Services is attached and labeled as AG-036-AG-037. 15 16 (Id.) 17 The undersigned finds that request no. 2 is overbroad in that not every policy, directive or 18 instruction to staff concerning the complete model governing healthcare operations at MCSP is 19 relevant to this action. Defendant adequately responded to request no. 2 by providing plaintiff 20 with copies of manuals related to pharmacy and medication services, which are relevant to the 21 issues raised in this action. For these reasons, the motion to compel as to request no. 2 is denied.
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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AKIVA A. ISRAEL, No. 2: 21-cv-1267 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RUBY CARTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 53.) 19 For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 20 Background 21 To put the motion to compel in context, the undersigned herein sets forth the claims on 22 which this action proceeds. 23 This action proceeds on the second amended complaint against defendant Ruby Carter as 24 to claims one and two. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff alleges that on August 18, 2020, defendant Carter 25 violated the Eighth Amendment by denying plaintiff Mirtazapine and Hydroxyzine. (Id.) 26 Plaintiff alleges that as a result of not receiving her medication, her mental and medical 27 conditions deteriorated and she suffered suicidal ideation. (Id.) 28 The alleged deprivations occurred at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”). 1 Legal Standard for Motion to Compel 2 The scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) is broad. 3 Discovery may be obtained as to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 4 defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within 5 this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. The court, 6 however, may limit discovery if it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained 7 from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;” or if the 8 party who seeks discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery;” 9 or if “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 26(b)(2)(C). 11 “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request 12 satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).” Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 1390794, at 13 *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (citations omitted). “Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has 14 the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, 15 explaining or supporting its objections.” Id. The opposing party “has the burden to show that 16 discovery should not be allowed…” DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 17 2002). 18 Clarification of At-Issue Discovery Requests 19 In the motion to compel, plaintiff does not clearly identify the at-issue discovery requests. 20 However, plaintiff alleges that she notified defendant that the responses to interrogatories nos. 7-8 21 and request for production of documents nos. 1-3, 6-7, 9-12 were insufficient. (ECF No. 53 at 3.) 22 Plaintiff only addresses defendant’s responses to her request for production of documents. 23 Accordingly, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s motion to compel concerns only request for 24 production of documents nos. 1-3, 6-7 and 9-12. Defendant also interpreted the motion to compel 25 to address these requests.1 26 //// 27 1 Plaintiff did not dispute defendant’s interpretation of the motion to compel as addressing 28 request for production of documents nos. 1-3, 6-7 and 9-12. 1 Request No. 1 2 Request no. 1 sought, 3 Any and all grievances, complaints, or other documents received by prison staff or CDCR agents at Mule Creek or CDCR generally 4 concerning the mistreatment and/or improper medical conduct by Defendant Carter, and any memoranda, investigative files, or other 5 documents created in response to such complaints since January 1, 2000. 6 7 ECF No. 53 at 37.) 8 Defendant responded, 9 Objection. The request for all grievances and complaints received by prison staff or CDCR agents at Mule Creek or CDCR concerning 10 mistreatment and or improper medical conduct by defendant Carter is overbroad as to scope and time, not relevant to the claims and 11 defenses in this case, is unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case, and invasive of the privacy rights of defendant 12 and any inmates who may have submitted complaints. The request further violates the official information privilege and seeks personal 13 and private information of staff members or materials that constitutes personnel information, which is confidential. (Cal. Code of Regs., 14 tit. 15, §§ 3321, 3450, & 3370.) Without waiving these objections, defendants state: all relevant, unprivileged responsive documents in 15 their possession, custody or control will be produced. 16 (Id. at 38.) 17 The undersigned finds that the documents sought in request no. 1 regarding grievances, 18 complaints or other documents concerning alleged inadequate medical care provided by 19 defendant Carter to other inmates are not relevant to this action. The issues in this action are 20 solely related to defendant Carter’s actions taken toward plaintiff, therefore making defendant 21 Carter’s treatment of other inmates not relevant. Brooks v. Tate, 2013 WL 4049058, at *2 (E.D. 22 Cal. Aug. 7, 2013) (third-party prisoner complaints alleging inadequate medical care not relevant 23 to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff); Gallagher v. Department of 24 Corrections, 2017 WL 347467, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 24, 2017) (“The facts and circumstances 25 of each inmate’s medical condition are different, and therefore, whether or not a particular inmate 26 filed a grievance as to his medical condition is not relevant to this case.”). 27 Moreover, assuming the relevancy of the documents sought in request no. 1, the request is 28 overbroad because it seeks documents from January 1, 2000, to the present. The alleged 1 deprivation in this action occurred on August 18, 2020. The request for documents going back 20 2 years from the alleged deprivation is overbroad. 3 For the reasons discussed above, the motion to compel as to request no. 1 is denied.2 4 Request No. 2 5 Request no. 2 sought, “Any and all policies, directives or instructions to staff concerning 6 the complete care model governing healthcare operations at Mule Creek State Prison.” (ECF No. 7 53 at 38.) 8 Defendant responded, 9 Objection. The request for all policies, directives, or instructions to staff concerning the complete care model governing healthcare 10 operations at Mule Creek State Prison is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that there are many policies and procedures 11 concerning inmate healthcare provided by Mule Creek State Prison. 12 Subject to and without waiving objection, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), a copy of the California Department of 13 Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Correctional Health Care Services, Health Care Department Operations Manual section 3.2.1, 14 Article 2-Pharmacy and Medication Services is attached and labeled as AG-036-AG-037. 15 16 (Id.) 17 The undersigned finds that request no. 2 is overbroad in that not every policy, directive or 18 instruction to staff concerning the complete model governing healthcare operations at MCSP is 19 relevant to this action. Defendant adequately responded to request no. 2 by providing plaintiff 20 with copies of manuals related to pharmacy and medication services, which are relevant to the 21 issues raised in this action. For these reasons, the motion to compel as to request no. 2 is denied. 22 Request No. 3 23 Request no. 3 sought, “Any and all policies, directives, or instructions to staff concerning 24 the delivery of medically necessary health care services to the CDCR patient population.” (ECF 25 No. 53 at 38.) 26 ///// 27 2 Because the undersigned finds that request no. 1 is overbroad and seeks documents not 28 relevant to this action, the undersigned need not reach defendant’s other objections to this request. 1 Defendant responded, 2 Objection. The request for any and all policies, directives, or instructions to staff concerning the delivery of medically necessary 3 health care services to the CDCR patient population is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that there are many policies and 4 procedures concerning the delivery of medically necessary health care services to the CDCR patient population. 5 Subject to and without waiving said objection, under Federal Rule of 6 Civil Procedure 33(d), a copy of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Correctional Health Care 7 Services, Health Care Department Operations Manual section 3.5.5, Prescription/Order Requirements, California Department of 8 Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Health Care Services, Health Care Department Operations Manual section 3.2.2, 9 Medication Orders-Prescribing, and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Correctional Health Care 10 Services, Health Care Department Operations Manual section 3.5.4, CCHCS Drug Formulary are attached and labeled AG-038-AG-048. 11 12 (Id. at 39.) 13 The undersigned finds that request no. 3 is overbroad in that not every policy, directive or 14 instruction to staff concerning the delivery of medical care services to inmates in the CDCR 15 population is relevant to this action. Defendant adequately responded to request no. 3 by 16 providing plaintiff with copies of manuals related to pharmacy and medication services, which 17 are relevant to the issues raised in this action. For these reasons, the motion to compel as to 18 request no. 3 is denied. 19 Request No. 6 20 Request no. 6 sought, 21 Any and all documents by any Mule Creek staff member or any other CDCR employee or official in response to Health Care Grievance 22 tracking #20000079 filed by the plaintiff in August 2020, including defendant Carter’s statement during the staff complaint interview for 23 said health care grievance (CDCR 602 HC). 24 (ECF No. 53 at 40.) 25 Defendant responded, “All relevant responsive documents in their possession, custody or 26 control will be produced. A complete copy of Health Care Grievance tracking # 20000079 is 27 attached and labeled AG-064-AG-079.” (Id. at 41.) 28 //// 1 In the motion to compel, plaintiff alleges that she is seeking defendant Carter’s full 2 statement to S. Snow made during the grievance process. (ECF No. 53 at 4.) Plaintiff also 3 alleges that she is seeking reports from an interview with witness A. Underwood. (Id.) Attached 4 to plaintiff’s motion to compel is the Institutional Response to plaintiff’s grievance. (Id. at 93- 5 94.) This response, signed by S. Snow and T. Patterson, indicates that plaintiff’s cellmate, inmate 6 Underwood, and defendant Carter were interviewed. (Id. at 93-94.) 7 In opposition to the motion to compel, defendant states that defendant’s counsel inquired 8 as to the existence of written statements or other recordings made during the staff complaint 9 interview and was informed that no documents or recordings exist. (ECF No. 55 at 7.) 10 Defendant contends that they fully complied with request no. 6. (Id.) 11 To the extent plaintiff seeks written statements or other recordings made of the interviews 12 with defendant Carter and inmate Underwood during the staff complaint review, defendant 13 represents that these documents and recordings do not exist. The undersigned cannot order 14 defendant to produce documents and recordings that do not exist. 15 The undersigned finds that defendant adequately responded to request no. 6 by providing 16 plaintiff with a complete copy of Health Care Grievance tracking # 20000079. Accordingly, the 17 motion to compel as to request no. 6 is denied. 18 Request no. 7 19 Request no. 7 sought, “All sick call request sheets from January 1, 2019, to the date of 20 your response.” (ECF No. 53 at 41.) 21 Defendant responded, 22 Objection. The request for all sick call sheets from January 1, 2019 to the date of response is overly broad and unduly burdensome and 23 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also violates the privacy of third-parties. 24 25 (Id.) 26 In request no. 7, plaintiff does not clarify whether she seeks only her own sick call request 27 sheets or sick call request sheets for all inmates. Plaintiff also does not clarify whether the sick 28 call request sheets are only related to treatment inmates received from defendant Carter. Because 1 request no. 7 is vaguely worded, the undersigned cannot determine what specific documents 2 plaintiff seeks in this request. 3 However, the undersigned finds that to the extent plaintiff seeks sick call request sheets 4 submitted by other inmates related to treatment received from defendant Carter, these documents 5 are not relevant to the claims raised in the instant action. Brooks v. Tate, 2013 WL 4049058, at 6 *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2013); Gallagher v. Department of Corrections, 2017 WL 347467, at *2 7 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 24, 2017). To the extent plaintiff seeks her own sick call request sheets from 8 January 1, 2019 to the date of defendant’s response, this request is overbroad because not every 9 sick call request submitted by plaintiff during this time period is relevant to this action. 10 Accordingly, the motion to compel as to request no. 7 is denied.3 11 Request No. 9 12 Request no. 9 sought, 13 Any logs, lists or other documentation reflecting grievances filed by Mule Creek inmates from January 1, 2015 to the date of your 14 response. Include only those grievances classified as medical grievance and/or staff complaint grievances. 15 16 (ECF No. 53 at 41.) 17 Defendant responded, 18 Objection. The request for any logs, lists or other documentation reflecting grievances filed by Mule Creek inmates from January 1, 19 2015 to the date of response is overbroad, overly burdensome, invasive of the privacy rights of other staff and other inmates and 20 involves the production of personnel records. The request further violates the official information privilege and seeks personnel 21 information, which is confidential. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, §§ 3321, 3450, & 3370.) 22 23 (Id.) 24 In the opposition, defendant also argue that request no. 9 seeks documents not relevant to 25 this action. (ECF No. 55 at 10.) 26 ///// 27 3 Because the undersigned finds that request no. 7 is vague and overbroad, the undersigned need 28 not reach defendant’s other objections to this request. 1 For the following reasons, the undersigned finds that request no. 9 is overbroad and seeks 2 documents that are not relevant to this action. First, request no. 9 is not limited to grievances 3 concerning medical care provided by defendant Carter. Second, as discussed above, the issues in 4 this action are solely related to defendant Carter’s actions taken toward plaintiff, therefore making 5 defendant Carter’s treatment of other inmates not relevant. Brooks v. Tate, 2013 WL 4049058, at 6 *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2013); Gallagher v. Department of Corrections, 2017 WL 347467, at *2 7 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 24, 2017). Accordingly, the motion to compel as to request no. 9 is denied.4 8 Request No. 10 9 Request no. 10 sought, 10 Any and all document created by any Mule Creek Staff member or any other CDCR staff employee or official in response to a grievance 11 filed by the Plaintiff in August 2020 concerning her medical care, or any other appeals of that grievance. 12 13 (ECF No. 53 at 42.) 14 Defendant responded, “A complete copy of the Health Care Grievance tracking 15 #20000079 will be produced and is labeled AG-090-AG-095.” (Id.) 16 In opposition to the motion to compel, defendant states that defendant’s counsel inquired 17 as to the existence of written statements or other recordings during the staff complaint interview 18 and was informed that no documents or recordings exist. (ECF No. 55 at 12.) Defendant 19 contends that they fully complied with request no. 10. (Id.) 20 In response to request no. 10, defendant provided plaintiff with all documents regarding 21 the grievance plaintiff filed against defendant Carter regarding the claims raised in this action. 22 The undersigned finds that defendant adequately responded to request no. 10. Accordingly, the 23 motion to compel as to request no. 10 is denied. 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 4 Because the undersigned finds that request no. 9 seeks documents not relevant to this action, the 28 undersigned need not reach defendant’s other objections to this request. 1 Request No. 11 2 Request no. 11 sought, 3 Any and all documents created by any Mule Creek staff member from the inception of defendant Carter’s employment with CDCR to 4 date concerning the plaintiff’s medical care and not included in previous items of this request. 5 6 (ECF No. 53 at 42.) 7 Defendant responded, 8 Objection. The request for any and all documents created by any Mule Creek staff member from the inception of defendant Carter’s 9 employment with CDCR to date concerning the plaintiff’s medical care and not included in previous items of this request is overly broad 10 and unduly burdensome as plaintiff may obtain copies of these records. 11 (Id.) 12 The undersigned finds that request no. 11 is overbroad because not every document 13 created by MCSP staff regarding plaintiff’s medical care from the inception of defendant Carter’s 14 employment is relevant to the claims against defendant Carter raised in this action. Accordingly, 15 the motion to compel as to request no. 11 is denied. 16 Request No. 12 17 Request no. 12 sought, 18 Any and all documents, including but not limited to disciplinary reports, created by any staff member or any other state employee or 19 official concerning any improper conduct and/or staff misconduct incident involving defendant Carter before, on, as well as after 20 August 18, 2020, and any investigation or action concerning staff misconduct incidents. 21 22 (ECF No. 53 at 42.) 23 Defendant responded, 24 Objection. The request for any [and] all documents, including but not limited to disciplinary reports, created by any CDCR staff 25 member or any other state employee or official concerning any improper conduct and/or staff misconduct incident involving 26 defendant Carter before, on, as well as after August 18, 2020, and any investigation or action concerning staff misconduct incidents is 27 overbroad, overly burdensome, calls for the production of protected personnel records, and invades the privacy of the inmates who 28 submitted the other complaints. The request further violates the ] official information privilege and seeks personnel information of staff members or materials that constitutes personnel information, 2 which 1s confidential. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, §§ 3321, 3450, & 3470.) 3 Subject to and without waiving the objections, defendant will 4 produce a complete copy of the Health Care Grievance tracking #20000079 and is labeled AG-096-AG-111. 5 6 | (Id. at 42-43.) 7 In a supplemental response to request no. 12, defendant informed plaintiff that no g || responsive documents to request no. 12 exist because defendant was not disciplined by CDCR. 9 || CECF No. 55 at 19.) 10 Defendant’s supplemental response to request no. 12 indicates that the documents sought 11 || 1 this request do not exist. The undersigned cannot order defendant to produce documents that 12 | do not exist. Accordingly, the motion to compel as to request no. 12 is denied.° 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 53) 14 || 1s denied. 15 || Dated: August 24, 2022 16 Ad 17 KENDALL]. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 Is1267.com 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 □□ ——__ ——— > Because the documents sought in request no. 12 do not exist, the undersigned need not reach 28 | defendant’s other objections to this request. 10