(PC) Villery v. Sanders

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 26, 2021
• Docket: 1:18-cv-01067
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JARED M. VILLERY, Case No. 1:18-cv-01067-DAD-HBK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART and FINDING MOOT 12 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 13 LUIS MACHADO, et. al., (Doc. Nos. 37) 14 Defendants. ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS to COMPEL AND FOR LEAVE 15 TO FILE OVERDUE MOTION TO COMPEL 16 (Doc. Nos. 38, 39) 17 18 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s two motions to compel filed respectively on 19 March 12 and March 22, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 37, 39). Plaintiff accompanied his March 22, 2021 20 (untimely) motion to compel with a motion seeking leave to file it despite its untimeliness. (Doc. 21 No. 38). Defendants filed oppositions to Plaintiff’s both motions. (Doc. Nos. 40, 41). Plaintiff 22 filed replies. (Doc. Nos. 42, 43). After reviewing the parties’ respective pleadings, the Court 23 required the parties to telephonically meet and confer in an effort to resolve the discovery 24 disputes, after which the parties were required to file a joint statement outlining what discovery 25 issues remained in dispute. (Doc. No. 45). On July 19, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Statement. 26 (Doc. No. 49). 27 /// 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his complaint filed pursuant to 42 3 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 9, 2018. (Doc. Nos. 1, 5). The Complaint alleges the following 4 violations of the First Amendment stemming from various retaliatory acts that occurred in August 5 2014 and September 20141 in response to Plaintiff pursuing administrative grievances against 6 Defendants: Defendant Gibbons trashed Plaintiff’s cell and filed fabricated disciplinary charges; 7 Defendant Machado obstructed Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing; Defendant Alatorre falsely 8 accused Plaintiff of misconduct; and Defendant Coontz found Plaintiff guilty at a disciplinary 9 hearing, falsified the hearing report, and threatened Plaintiff with false disciplinary charges. 10 (Doc. No. 1). The Court’s § 1915A screening determined Plaintiff adequately plead retaliation 11 claims against the four named Defendants. (Doc. No. 12). 12 A. March 16, 2021 Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 37) 13 In his March 16, 2021 motion to compel, Plaintiff sought discovery concerning the 14 following six general categories of documents: 1. Personnel and disciplinary records for each of 15 the named Defendants; 2. All emails from February 1, 2014 through November 30, 2019 related 16 to Plaintiff; 3. Grievances filed by non-party inmates at CCI against any of Defendants related to 17 their unspecified behavior; 4. Rules Violations Reports against non-party inmates at which any of 18 the Defendants were hearing officers; 5. Control Tower Logbooks; and 6. Housing Unit Cell 19 Search Logbooks reflecting any cell searches by any Defendant. (See generally Doc. No. 37). 20 According to parties Joint Statement, three outstanding discovery disputes remain unresolved: (1) 21 whether Defendants must produce Defendants’ disciplinary records and personnel files; (2) 22 whether Defendants must produce all grievances filed by non-party inmates against Defendants; 23 and (3) whether Defendants must produce all rules violation reports authored or heard by 24 Defendants. (Doc. No. 49). The Court accordingly denies as moot the following discovery 25 disputes raised in Plaintiff’s March 16, 2021 motion to compel: 1. Request No. 6 for all emails 26 “directly or indirectly related” to Plaintiff (Doc. No. 37 at 21, 84); 2. Request No. 3 to “produce 27

28 1 The alleged acts of retaliation appear to stem from at least two unrelated events. 1 any and all pages from the Housing Unit Two Control Tower Logbooks, on Facility C at CCI, 2 which reflect any all entries made from January 15, 2014 to November 30, 2014” (Doc. No. 37 at 3 29-30, 118); and 3. Request No. 3 to “identify and produce any and all pages from the Housing 4 Unit Cell Search Logbooks, from every Housing Unity [sic] on Facility C at CCI, which reflect 5 every cell that was searched, by an officer, on August 19, 2014” (Doc. No. 37 at 31, 124). The 6 Court will address the unresolved discovery disputes below. 7 B. March 25, 2021 Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 39) 8 In his March 25, 2021 motion to compel directed against Defendant Coontz, Plaintiff 9 sought the “the Confidential Supplements, Attachment C, generated in connection with the 10 following inmate Appeals: #CCI-0-14-02120; #CCI-0-14-02702; and #CCI-0-14-02703.” (Doc. 11 No. 39 at 11, 25). Plaintiff represents these were related to appeals he personally filed in 2014. 12 (Id. at 11). The production of these supplements is not among the remaining discovery disputes 13 following the meet and confer. (See Doc. 49). Therefore, because the sole discovery dispute 14 raised in Plaintiff’s untimely motion to compel appears to have been resolved by the parties 15 during their meet and confer, the Court finds both Plaintiff’s March 25, 2021 motion to compel 16 and his motion for leave to file an untimely motion are moot. 17 II. Standards of Review 18 A. Rule 26 - Scope of Discovery Generally 19 “[U]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties 20 may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 21 defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at 22 stake in the action, the amount of controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, 23 the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the 24 burden and expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the benefit. Information within the 25 scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). District courts have “broad discretion to manage discovery.” Avila v. 27 Willits Envtl. Remediation Tr., 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011). 28 /// 1 B. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, Local Rule 250.3 - Production of Documents 2 “A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce 3 and permit the requesting party . . . to inspect [and] copy . . . any designated documents . . . in the 4 responding party’s possession, custody or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). “The request must 5 describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected.” Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A). The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 7 days of being served that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, or state 8 an objection to the request, including the reasons. Fed. R. Civ P. 34(b)(2). 9 III. Analysis 10 A. Defendants’ Disciplinary Records and Personnel Files 11 Plaintiff’s original request for production sought from each defendant 12 all documents that comprise or are a part of your CDCR personnel file, which describe, reference, and/or are in any way related to, 13 directly or indirectly, any and all adverse personnel and/or disciplinary actions that have been taken against you by the CDCR, 14 for behavior which took place between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2015, including but not limited to: (a) Letters of 15 Instruction; (b) temporary and/or permanent demotions, reassignments, or pay decreases; (c) suspensions; (d) mandatory 16 training; (e) on-the-job training; as well as any and all documents which evidence the basis for why such action(s) were taken against 17 you.” 18 (Doc. No. 37 at 95-96). 19 Per the Joint Statement, the parties narrowed the dispute to all “disciplinary records and 20 personnel files from each named Defendant.” (Doc. No. 49 at 2 ¶¶ 8-9). Plaintiff argues such 21 information is discoverable because it may indicate a pattern of misconduct and may pierce 22 Defendants’ credibility. (Id. ¶¶ 13-21). Defendants object, arguing the request is overbroad, 23 irrelevant and that such information would be improper character evidence. (Id. ¶¶ 23-27). 24 The Court finds Defendants disciplinary records and personnel files are discoverable. 25 Courts have recognized in § 1983 actions that evidence of other misconduct against defendants 26 may be used for purposes other than character evidence, such as showing bias or a pattern or 27 practice of unprofessional behavior. Taylor v. O'Hanneson, No. 11-CV-00538-LJO, 2014 WL 28 2696585, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2014); Ramirez v. County of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407, 412 1 (C.D. Cal. 2005). The Court will therefore order Defendants to produce these records from their 2 personnel files, subject to certain limitations. Defendants need only produce records of 3 grievances filed or disciplinary actions taken against them that involved retaliation, planting of 4 evidence, or other dishonesty on the part of Defendants. Defendants may redact the name of 5 witnesses and discussion of proprietary investigative techniques, and any additional information 6 that does not address whether Defendants were accused of or found to have violated prison 7 policy. The Court finds the time period from 2008 to 2015 to be overly expansive. The events 8 giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim allegedly occurred in 2014. For the sake of proportionality and 9 relevancy, the Court will limit the time period for the production of these records to a four-year 10 period: from 2011 to 2015. 11 Defendants argue that if the Court deems the personnel records discoverable, they should 12 first be reviewed in camera because Defendants timely invoked official information privilege. 13 (Doc. No. 40 at 7-10; Doc. No. 41 at 4-7; Doc. No. 49 at 2-3). Disclosing the personnel records, 14 Defendants argue, would jeopardize the prison disciplinary process by exposing witness 15 statements and the methods used to investigate officers. (Id.). 16 Government personnel files are considered official information. Sanchez v. City of Santa 17 Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990). When the official information privilege is invoked, 18 Courts should conduct an in camera review to determine whether the privileged documents 19 relevancy compels their disclosure. See, e.g., Seminara v. City of Long Beach, 68 F.3d 481 (9th 20 Cir. 1995); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033–34 (9th Cir. 1990), as amended on 21 denial of reh'g (Feb. 27, 1991), as amended on denial of reh'g (May 24, 1991) (internal citations 22 omitted) (“Government personnel files are considered official information. To determine whether 23 the information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against 24 the potential disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the privilege bars discovery.”). This Court has 25 routinely compelled the disclosure of documents despite the invocation of official information 26 privilege. See, e.g., Caruso v. Solorio, No. 115CV00780AWIEPGPC, 2018 WL 2254365, at *2 27 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2018); Noble v. City of Fresno, No. 116CV01690DADBAM, 2017 WL 28 5665850, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2017). 1 The Court recognizes the need to keep inviolate the prison disciplinary process. By 2 allowing prison officials to redact all information other than that showing a Defendant was 3 accused of or found to have engaged in retaliation, planting of evidence, or other dishonest 4 actions, the Court believes the process is protected. The Court cannot definitively say whether it 5 has done so, however, absent reviewing the disputed files. Therefore, if Defendants believe these 6 redactions are insufficient to cure their concerns, they may submit the documents where official 7 information privilege was invoked for in camera review. The Court would then analyze whether 8 the benefits of disclosing those documents outweigh the disadvantages. If Defendants opt to 9 submit those documents for in camera review they must be accompanied by the corresponding 10 privilege log. Defendants must still provide Plaintiff with any responsive personnel files where 11 official information privilege was not claimed. 12 B. All Grievances Filed by Non-party Inmates Against Defendants 13 Plaintiff’s original request for production sought from each defendant 14 any and all inmate appeals, which have been classified as Staff Complaints or any other Subject, that have been filed by inmates at 15 the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) other than Plaintiff, between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2015, which are in any 16 way related to your behavior, directly or indirectly. 17 (Doc. No. 37 at 99). 18 Per the joint statement, the parties narrowed the dispute to “all grievances filed by non- 19 party inmates against Defendants that relate to their behavior over a several-year long period of 20 time.” (Doc. No. 49 at 3 ¶¶ 8-9). Defendants object, arguing the request is irrelevant, overbroad 21 and would chill participation in the prison investigatory and disciplinary processes. (Id. ¶¶ 19- 22 27). 23 The earlier discussed dispute concerning Defendants’ disciplinary records and personnel 24 files encompass grievances filed by non-party inmates, so the Court need not repeat its reasoning. 25 As with the disciplinary records and personnel files, Defendants must produce grievances 26 implicating retaliation, planting of evidence, and dishonesty subject to the limitations previously 27 described. Defendants may redact the names of the non-parties to shield their identities. The 28 Court will permit Defendants to further redact any information that may reveal their identity – so 1 long as the grievances indicate whether Defendants were accused of or found to have engaged in 2 retaliation or acts of dishonesty. (Doc. 49 at 3-4). The Court will again limit the period of 3 relevance for these documents for a four-year period: from 2011 through 2015. 4 C. All Rules Violation Reports Authored or Heard by Defendants 5 Plaintiff’s original request for production sought: 6 all Rules Violation Reports (RVR”) [sic] for which you were the Reporting Employee, issued to inmates from January 1, 2011 7 through December 31, 2014, which were based on the charge of “POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS CONTRABAND”. 8 9 (Doc. No. 37 at 122) (emphasis in original). The parties reframed the request as seeking “all rules 10 violation reports authored or heard by Defendants.” (Doc. No. 49 at 4 ¶¶ 4-5). Plaintiff argues 11 these reports are relevant because they may show Defendants have a history of trumping up 12 disciplinary charges. (Doc. No. 37 at 26-29). Defendants oppose producing the reports, 13 contending they are irrelevant, overbroad, and that their production would be unduly burdensome. 14 (Doc. No. 40 at 4-5). Defendants represent there is no database to search Rule Violation Reports 15 and hearings by the name of the presiding officer, and that to comply with Plaintiff’s request 16 would involve manually sifting through each individual report, a process that would take several 17 hundred hours. (Doc. No. 49-1 at 2 ¶¶ 4-6). 18 The fact that one or more of the Defendants may have presided over other disciplinary 19 hearings involving similar charges against other non-party inmates is not relevant to the issues in 20 this action. In particular, unless a non-party inmate challenged the findings, prevailed, and then 21 filed a civil rights suit and prevailed on that suit, documents showing Defendants authored or 22 heard similar RVRs is of no consequence. Arguably, records where a non-party inmate did 23 prevail would be included in the previously granted documents concerning grievances lodged 24 against Defendants. 25 Further, the Court finds the burden of producing these reports substantially outweighs 26 their limited probative value given that there is no readily easy way for Defendants to identify 27 these documents. A discovery request can be denied where the “burden that compliance would 28 impose on CDCR outweighs the potential relevance.” Fernandez v. California Dep't of 1 Correction & Rehab., No. 2:11-CV-01125 MCE, 2014 WL 794332, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2 2014); Garrett v. Walker, 2007 WL 3342522 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2007) (finding defendants did not 3 need to produce documents because the burden outweighed relevance). Here, the burden of 4 spending hundreds of hours manually reviewing Rules Violation Reports greatly outweighs 5 whatever minimal probative value these Reports, if any, may provide. The Court accordingly 6 finds Defendants need not respond further regarding this request. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiff’s March 16, 2021 motion to compel (Doc. Nos. 37) is GRANTED in part, 9 DENIED in part, and mooted as follows: 10 (a) Plaintiff’s Request Nos. 1 and 7 in Set One are GRANTED to the 11 extent Defendants must produce within 21 days from the date of this Order 12 any disciplinary records from Defendants’ personnel files, and any 13 grievances lodged against Defendants involving alleged acts of dishonesty, 14 planting of evidence or retaliation by Defendants for the period 2011 15 through 2015. Defendants may redact the name of complainant, witnesses, 16 non-party inmates, and discussion of proprietary investigative techniques, 17 and any information that does not address whether Defendants were 18 accused of or found to have violated prison policy. If after redacting this 19 information Defendants believe some files where official information 20 privilege was invoked pose a security risk, they may submit those 21 documents for in camera review within 21 days of this Order. 22 (b) Plaintiff’s Request No. 1 from Set Two is DENIED and Defendants 23 need not produce any rules violation reports authored or heard by 24 Defendants. 25 (c) Plaintiff’s remaining document requests in the March 16, 2021 are 26 DENIED as moot. 27 2. Plaintiff’s March 25, 2021 motion to compel (Doc. No. 38) is DENIED as 28 moot. 1 3. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file overdue motion to compel (Doc. No. 38) is DENIED 2 | as moot. 3 4 Dated: _ October 26, 2021 oo. Zh. fared Hack 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28