1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ERNEST LEE VADEN, No. 2:19-cv-2216 TLN CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DR. ROBERT L. MAYES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding with a civil action against defendants Dr. 18 Mayes, Dr. Kuersten, and California State Prison, Solano. Plaintiff has filed motions to compel 19 further responses to plaintiff’s first and second set of requests for production of documents. 20 First, defendants argue that the motions are not timely. On April 13, 2022, the court 21 extended the discovery deadline to July 1, 2022, and the parties were informed that any motion to 22 compel was to be filed by that date. The motions to compel were deemed filed on June 30, 2022, 23 when plaintiff submitted the motions for mailing. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th 24 Cir. 2009) (documents submitted by prisoners in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action such as this are 25 deemed filed when the prisoner gives the document to a prison official for mailing). Accordingly, 26 the motions are timely. 27 However, for reasons which follow, the motions themselves and the oppositions to the 28 motions are not acceptable: 1 1. As with most documents filed by plaintiff, there are too many unnecessary exhibits 2 attached which makes it difficult for the court to locate the exhibits that do matter such as 3 defendants’ responses to the requests for production at issue. 4 2. In total, plaintiff asks that the court compel further responses to 35 requests for 5 production, even though plaintiff indicates he has received some 4,000 documents, with 6 redactions, in discovery. ECF No. 109 at 2. A review of both of plaintiff’s motions to compel 7 confirms the court’s initial suspicion that many of the requests for further responses are frivolous, 8 made in bad faith or both. 9 For example, plaintiff asks the court to compel defendants to provide documents that 10 defendants have indicated do not exist, including requests 1, 2, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 24 in the 11 set two motion. In other requests for further production, such as request 1 in set one, plaintiff 12 asks for documents which he had not even requested in the original request. Further, many 13 requests are clearly overbroad: in request 2 of set one, for example, plaintiff seeks approximately 14 3 1/2 years-worth of documents related to policy as to glucose, despite the fact that the only 15 possible injury suffered by plaintiff as a result of that policy occurred over a span of one month at 16 most. Similarly, in set one, request 29, plaintiff asks for the names, pictures, and prisoner 17 identification numbers of inmates who lived in four different buildings over a period of 8 months, 18 with no obvious relation to his claims. In other requests, such as request 10 in set one, plaintiff 19 seeks documents related to persons with no discernible meaningful connection to plaintiff’s 20 remaining claims. Further, defendants are not required to take pictures as plaintiff suggests in 21 request 3 of set two. 22 3. It appears some of the requests for production in set two are somewhat duplicative of 23 requests made in set one. 24 4. Frequently plaintiff makes assertions in his motions to compel not applicable to the 25 designated request to produce at issue. The court need go no further than request to produce 1 in 26 set one in which plaintiff strays off topic discussing his discontent with redactions made by 27 defendants and then seeks to expand the breadth of his original request. 28 5. As for the oppositions, the numbering used by defendants in the opposition to set one 1 is confusing. For example, page four concerns request for production 5, yet the bold print above 2 the language of the actual request for production reads “Request for Production 1.” This happens 3 repeatedly throughout the opposition (i.e. pages 7, 13-18). 4 6. In the oppositions to both motions for further production, defendants assert numerous 5 objections, some of which appear to be boilerplate, inappropriate, and / or unsupported by federal 6 law. For example, in the response to request to produce 1 in set one, defendants claim the request 7 is unduly burdensome without explanation. Defendants assert some documents are “potentially 8 privileged” which is not an appropriate basis at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) (any claim of 9 privilege must be made expressly and must include a description of the nature of the documents 10 allegedly privileged). Additionally, defendants assert privileges arising under state law which are 11 not applicable in federal court. Further, in the response to the motion to compel a further 12 response to request 1, defendants claim that they “justifiably refused to provide health care 13 grievances filed by non-party inmates” without identifying the justification. The court presumes 14 that defendants are alluding to state and possibly federal privacy laws concerning medical 15 records, but is not clear. 16 7. Defendants are sometimes not clear whether all documents were produced or whether 17 some were held back (for example, request to produce 3 in set one). 18 8. In response to plaintiff’s motion to compel as to request 4 in set one, defendants 19 indicated they would look for more documents. This is not appropriate. What would be 20 appropriate is to search for more documents then indicate in the opposition to the motion to 21 compel whether more documents were found and produced. 22 9. Defendants are, at times, evasive. For example, with respect to set one request 12 23 defendants assert that the word “memoranda” is vague even though it is sufficiently clear within 24 the context of the request to produce. Similarly, “all investigative notes” as it appears in request 25 5 in set two is neither vague nor ambiguous. 26 10. Defendants also object on the basis of undue burden and overbreadth numerous times. 27 While the briefing at least suggests that these objections are possibly appropriate, at most times 28 defendants do not provide enough detail upon which the court can make such a finding. 1 In sum, both motions to compel, and the oppositions thereto are unacceptable, and the 2 court will not waste judicial resources attempting to unscramble the filings. Both motions to 3 compel will be denied without prejudice. The court will permit the parties 30 days within which 4 to meet and confer as to a resolution of the issues raised in plaintiff’s motions to compel. If at the 5 end of the meet and confer period, plaintiff is still not satisfied as to the responses to his requests 6 for production, plaintiff will be permitted to file a motion to compel. If plaintiff elects to file 7 another motion to compel, he must adhere to the following: 8 1. The motions cannot exceed the scope of the motions already presented. 9 2. Plaintiff must submit the challenged responses, and if defendants’ position has changed 10 concerning an initial response, plaintiff must so indicate and describe the new position. Plaintiff 11 must refrain from filing any other unnecessary exhibits. 12 3. Plaintiff is informed that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ERNEST LEE VADEN, No. 2:19-cv-2216 TLN CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DR. ROBERT L. MAYES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding with a civil action against defendants Dr. 18 Mayes, Dr. Kuersten, and California State Prison, Solano. Plaintiff has filed motions to compel 19 further responses to plaintiff’s first and second set of requests for production of documents. 20 First, defendants argue that the motions are not timely. On April 13, 2022, the court 21 extended the discovery deadline to July 1, 2022, and the parties were informed that any motion to 22 compel was to be filed by that date. The motions to compel were deemed filed on June 30, 2022, 23 when plaintiff submitted the motions for mailing. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th 24 Cir. 2009) (documents submitted by prisoners in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action such as this are 25 deemed filed when the prisoner gives the document to a prison official for mailing). Accordingly, 26 the motions are timely. 27 However, for reasons which follow, the motions themselves and the oppositions to the 28 motions are not acceptable: 1 1. As with most documents filed by plaintiff, there are too many unnecessary exhibits 2 attached which makes it difficult for the court to locate the exhibits that do matter such as 3 defendants’ responses to the requests for production at issue. 4 2. In total, plaintiff asks that the court compel further responses to 35 requests for 5 production, even though plaintiff indicates he has received some 4,000 documents, with 6 redactions, in discovery. ECF No. 109 at 2. A review of both of plaintiff’s motions to compel 7 confirms the court’s initial suspicion that many of the requests for further responses are frivolous, 8 made in bad faith or both. 9 For example, plaintiff asks the court to compel defendants to provide documents that 10 defendants have indicated do not exist, including requests 1, 2, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 24 in the 11 set two motion. In other requests for further production, such as request 1 in set one, plaintiff 12 asks for documents which he had not even requested in the original request. Further, many 13 requests are clearly overbroad: in request 2 of set one, for example, plaintiff seeks approximately 14 3 1/2 years-worth of documents related to policy as to glucose, despite the fact that the only 15 possible injury suffered by plaintiff as a result of that policy occurred over a span of one month at 16 most. Similarly, in set one, request 29, plaintiff asks for the names, pictures, and prisoner 17 identification numbers of inmates who lived in four different buildings over a period of 8 months, 18 with no obvious relation to his claims. In other requests, such as request 10 in set one, plaintiff 19 seeks documents related to persons with no discernible meaningful connection to plaintiff’s 20 remaining claims. Further, defendants are not required to take pictures as plaintiff suggests in 21 request 3 of set two. 22 3. It appears some of the requests for production in set two are somewhat duplicative of 23 requests made in set one. 24 4. Frequently plaintiff makes assertions in his motions to compel not applicable to the 25 designated request to produce at issue. The court need go no further than request to produce 1 in 26 set one in which plaintiff strays off topic discussing his discontent with redactions made by 27 defendants and then seeks to expand the breadth of his original request. 28 5. As for the oppositions, the numbering used by defendants in the opposition to set one 1 is confusing. For example, page four concerns request for production 5, yet the bold print above 2 the language of the actual request for production reads “Request for Production 1.” This happens 3 repeatedly throughout the opposition (i.e. pages 7, 13-18). 4 6. In the oppositions to both motions for further production, defendants assert numerous 5 objections, some of which appear to be boilerplate, inappropriate, and / or unsupported by federal 6 law. For example, in the response to request to produce 1 in set one, defendants claim the request 7 is unduly burdensome without explanation. Defendants assert some documents are “potentially 8 privileged” which is not an appropriate basis at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) (any claim of 9 privilege must be made expressly and must include a description of the nature of the documents 10 allegedly privileged). Additionally, defendants assert privileges arising under state law which are 11 not applicable in federal court. Further, in the response to the motion to compel a further 12 response to request 1, defendants claim that they “justifiably refused to provide health care 13 grievances filed by non-party inmates” without identifying the justification. The court presumes 14 that defendants are alluding to state and possibly federal privacy laws concerning medical 15 records, but is not clear. 16 7. Defendants are sometimes not clear whether all documents were produced or whether 17 some were held back (for example, request to produce 3 in set one). 18 8. In response to plaintiff’s motion to compel as to request 4 in set one, defendants 19 indicated they would look for more documents. This is not appropriate. What would be 20 appropriate is to search for more documents then indicate in the opposition to the motion to 21 compel whether more documents were found and produced. 22 9. Defendants are, at times, evasive. For example, with respect to set one request 12 23 defendants assert that the word “memoranda” is vague even though it is sufficiently clear within 24 the context of the request to produce. Similarly, “all investigative notes” as it appears in request 25 5 in set two is neither vague nor ambiguous. 26 10. Defendants also object on the basis of undue burden and overbreadth numerous times. 27 While the briefing at least suggests that these objections are possibly appropriate, at most times 28 defendants do not provide enough detail upon which the court can make such a finding. 1 In sum, both motions to compel, and the oppositions thereto are unacceptable, and the 2 court will not waste judicial resources attempting to unscramble the filings. Both motions to 3 compel will be denied without prejudice. The court will permit the parties 30 days within which 4 to meet and confer as to a resolution of the issues raised in plaintiff’s motions to compel. If at the 5 end of the meet and confer period, plaintiff is still not satisfied as to the responses to his requests 6 for production, plaintiff will be permitted to file a motion to compel. If plaintiff elects to file 7 another motion to compel, he must adhere to the following: 8 1. The motions cannot exceed the scope of the motions already presented. 9 2. Plaintiff must submit the challenged responses, and if defendants’ position has changed 10 concerning an initial response, plaintiff must so indicate and describe the new position. Plaintiff 11 must refrain from filing any other unnecessary exhibits. 12 3. Plaintiff is informed that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) the 13 appropriate scope of discovery is as follows: 14 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the 15 needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access 16 to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense 17 of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to 18 be discoverable. 19 4. Any request for further production cannot be frivolous or made in bad faith as 20 described above. 21 5. Any request for further production cannot be duplicative of another request for further 22 production. 23 6. Any request for further production must be concise and shall not contain information 24 irrelevant to the request. 25 In any opposition, defendants must adhere to the following: 26 1. Defendants must correct the numbering issues which appear in the opposition to the 27 motion to compel concerning requests for production set one. 28 2. Defendants shall not assert any objection unless the request to produce is obviously 1 objectionable for the stated reason, or defendants support the objection with facts and applicable 2 federal law. 3 3. Defendants shall assert only those privileges that arise under federal law. 4 4. If defendants have turned over all documents responsive to a particular request they 5 shall so state (as opposed to indicating that some documents were turned over while being vague 6 as to whether there are any more documents). 7 5. If defendants fail to turn over any documents which are clearly within the scope of 8 discovery as described above and clarified by federal case law, and are not privileged under 9 federal law, monetary sanctions will issue. 10 Both parties are reminded or their responsibilities under Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules 11 of Civil Procedure.1 Also, with respect to discovery in particular, by submitting any request for 12 discovery or response thereto, the party certifies that the request or response is “not interposed for 13 any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost 14 of litigation,” and is “neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the 15 needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of 16 the issues at stake in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g). Any violation of these rules will be met 17 with sanctions which, for the plaintiff, might include dismissal of this action.
18 1 (b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other 19 paper--whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an 20 inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
21 (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; 22
23 (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for 24 establishing new law;
25 (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 26 discovery; and 27 (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so 28 identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information. ] Finally, the court notes that defendants’ motion for summary judgment is pending. 2 || Considering the foregoing, the motion for summary judgment will be denied without prejudice to 3 || renewal at an appropriate time to be determined by the court. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to provide further responses to plaintiff's first 6 || set of requests for production of documents (ECF No. 109) and plaintiff's motion to compel 7 || defendants to provide further responses to plaintiff's second set of requests for production of 8 | documents (ECF No. 113) are denied without prejudice. 9 2. The parties are granted 30 days within which to meet and confer as to the issues raised 10 | in plaintiff's motions to compel. 11 3. Plaintiffis granted 60 days within which to file motions to compel concerning 12 || defendants’ responses to plaintiff's first set of requests for production of documents and/or 13 || defendants’ responses to plaintiffs second set of requests for production of documents in 14 || accordance with the terms identified in this order. In addition to those terms, any motion to 15 || compel must include a certification that the meet and confer requirement described above was 16 || met. Defendants may file an opposition to any motion to compel within 30 days of service of the 17 || motion and the opposition must be in accordance with the terms identified herein. Plaintiff may 18 | file a reply brief within 30 days of service of an opposition. 19 4. In all other respects, discovery is closed. 20 5. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 138) is denied without prejudice. 21 || Defendants will be informed as to the time and procedure for renewal when appropriate. 22 | Dated: February 27, 2023 / ae / a ly. ae 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 | 1 28 vade2216.mtc(5)