1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEENAN WILKINS, No. 2:20-cv-01622 DJC SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. HESLOP, et al., 15 Defendants. 16
17 18 Plaintiff Keenan Wilkins, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with claims under 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983 asserting excessive force, retaliation, and violations of due process and equal protection. 20 Plaintiff also brings state law claims. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is before the court. 21 (ECF No. 62.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion to compel is granted in part and denied 22 in part. 23 I. Background and Plaintiff’s Allegations 24 Plaintiff filed this action in the San Joaquin County Superior Court and defendants 25 removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). (ECF No. 1.) At all relevant times, plaintiff 26 was an inmate at California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”). (ECF No. 20 at 1.) 27 The operative second amended complaint alleges that on January 17, 2019, plaintiff 28 informed his correctional counselor he did not feel safe around defendant Heslop and refused 1 Heslop as his staff assistant. (ECF No. 20 at 3.) Heslop came to plaintiff’s required Mental health 2 therapy at 9:00 a.m. and interrupted the group to speak to plaintiff. (Id. at 3-5.) 3 Under the complaint’s allegations, Heslop ordered plaintiff to leave the group and took 4 plaintiff back to his unit. (ECF No. 20 at 4-5.) Heslop grabbed plaintiff angrily and shoved him 5 against the wall. (Id. at 5.) Heslop handcuffed plaintiff aggressively and tried to force him to 6 walk, but plaintiff fell to the ground. (Id.) Other officers intervened and escorted plaintiff to his 7 cell. (ECF NO. 20 at 6.) 8 Following this incident on January 17, 2019, plaintiff “sought redress” against Heslop. 9 (ECF No. 20 at 7.) In an alleged act of retaliation, Heslop issued a “write-up with false 10 statements” which resulted in 90 days of punishment. (Id.) 11 Plaintiff alleges defendant Sawma, his staff assistant, did not meet with him or provide 12 him assistance pertaining to a disciplinary hearing on January 25, 2019. (ECF No. 20 at 9-11.) 13 The hearing officer, defendant B. Velasquez, refused to allow camera footage of the incident to 14 be shown, refused to allow plaintiff to call witnesses, denied plaintiff’s request to obtain and 15 present documentary evidence, and refused to consider plaintiff’s mental health assessment. (Id.) 16 Plaintiff was found guilty of a rule violation. (ECF No. 20 at 11.) Although the RVR was 17 dismissed on appeal, plaintiff still suffered the punishment. (Id.) 18 Based on the allegations above, on July 24, 2023, the court ordered that this case proceeds 19 on the following claims: (1) against defendant S. Heslop for excessive force in violation of the 20 Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, assault, battery, and 21 violation of the Bane Act; and (2) against B. Velasquez and A. Sawma for a violation of 22 plaintiff’s equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 34.) 23 On February 5, 2024, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 51.) 24 Briefing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment is currently stayed. (ECF No. 54.) 25 On April 16, 2024, the court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling 26 order and reopened discovery “for the limited purpose of requiring defendants to respond to the 27 plaintiff’s six sets of discovery requests served on October 31, 2023, and November 1, 2023.” 28 (ECF No. 57 at 6.) Defendants served responses. 1 Plaintiff filed the motion to compel presently before the court on June 7, 2024. (ECF No. 2 62.) The motion is fully briefed with defendants’ opposition and plaintiff’s reply. (ECF Nos. 69, 3 70.) 4 II. Legal Standards 5 A. Motion to Compel 6 Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may 7 move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 37(a)(3)(B). Such “motion may be made if ... (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory 9 submitted under Rule 33; or (iv) a party fails to produce documents or fails to respond that 10 inspection will be permitted – or fails to permit inspection – as required under Rule 34.” Id. “The 11 party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has 12 the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine 13 Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998). 14 B. Official Information Privilege 15 “Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information.” Sanchez 16 v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. 17 for the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975)). “To determine whether the 18 information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the 19 potential disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the privilege bars discovery.” Sanchez, 936 F.2d 20 1027, 1033-34; see Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (describing 21 the balancing test as “moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure”). The party asserting the 22 privilege properly invokes the privilege by providing a declaration or affidavit from a responsible 23 official with personal knowledge of the matters attested to which makes a “substantial threshold 24 showing” allowing assessment of the privilege assertions. Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 661. 25 C. Privacy Rights 26 Federal courts recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that may be asserted in 27 response to discovery requests. See Breed v. United States Dist. Ct. for Northern District, 542 28 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (balancing the invasion of minor’s privacy rights against the 1 court’s need for ward files); Johnson by Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497 (10th Cir. 2 1992), cert. den. 507 U.S. 910, (1993) (denying discovery of names of participants in a medical 3 study due to privacy interests of the individual participants). The resolution of a party’s privacy 4 objection involves balancing the need for the information sought against the privacy right 5 asserted. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Federal courts should 6 give “some weight” to privacy rights that are protected by state constitutions or statutes. Soto v. 7 City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 656). 8 III. Discussion 9 A. RFP (Set 2) 10 Plaintiff moves to compel defendants to provide further responses to Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11 4, 5, and 6 of plaintiff’s second set of requests for production of documents. (See ECF No. 62 at 12 3-4, 6-8.) 13 Nos. 1 & 3 14 In Request No. 1, plaintiff seeks the log or record showing the time the Code Alarm was 15 pushed after he fell to the ground. (ECF No. 69-11 at 5.) In Request No. 3, plaintiff seeks CDCR 16 forms which he argues CDCR was required by regulation to complete in reviewing a use of force 17 incident. (Id.) Defendants determined there are no responsive documents and responded 18 accordingly. 19 Whether further action is warranted as to Request No. 3 is a close call.
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 KEENAN WILKINS, No. 2:20-cv-01622 DJC SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. HESLOP, et al., 15 Defendants. 16
17 18 Plaintiff Keenan Wilkins, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with claims under 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983 asserting excessive force, retaliation, and violations of due process and equal protection. 20 Plaintiff also brings state law claims. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is before the court. 21 (ECF No. 62.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion to compel is granted in part and denied 22 in part. 23 I. Background and Plaintiff’s Allegations 24 Plaintiff filed this action in the San Joaquin County Superior Court and defendants 25 removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). (ECF No. 1.) At all relevant times, plaintiff 26 was an inmate at California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”). (ECF No. 20 at 1.) 27 The operative second amended complaint alleges that on January 17, 2019, plaintiff 28 informed his correctional counselor he did not feel safe around defendant Heslop and refused 1 Heslop as his staff assistant. (ECF No. 20 at 3.) Heslop came to plaintiff’s required Mental health 2 therapy at 9:00 a.m. and interrupted the group to speak to plaintiff. (Id. at 3-5.) 3 Under the complaint’s allegations, Heslop ordered plaintiff to leave the group and took 4 plaintiff back to his unit. (ECF No. 20 at 4-5.) Heslop grabbed plaintiff angrily and shoved him 5 against the wall. (Id. at 5.) Heslop handcuffed plaintiff aggressively and tried to force him to 6 walk, but plaintiff fell to the ground. (Id.) Other officers intervened and escorted plaintiff to his 7 cell. (ECF NO. 20 at 6.) 8 Following this incident on January 17, 2019, plaintiff “sought redress” against Heslop. 9 (ECF No. 20 at 7.) In an alleged act of retaliation, Heslop issued a “write-up with false 10 statements” which resulted in 90 days of punishment. (Id.) 11 Plaintiff alleges defendant Sawma, his staff assistant, did not meet with him or provide 12 him assistance pertaining to a disciplinary hearing on January 25, 2019. (ECF No. 20 at 9-11.) 13 The hearing officer, defendant B. Velasquez, refused to allow camera footage of the incident to 14 be shown, refused to allow plaintiff to call witnesses, denied plaintiff’s request to obtain and 15 present documentary evidence, and refused to consider plaintiff’s mental health assessment. (Id.) 16 Plaintiff was found guilty of a rule violation. (ECF No. 20 at 11.) Although the RVR was 17 dismissed on appeal, plaintiff still suffered the punishment. (Id.) 18 Based on the allegations above, on July 24, 2023, the court ordered that this case proceeds 19 on the following claims: (1) against defendant S. Heslop for excessive force in violation of the 20 Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, assault, battery, and 21 violation of the Bane Act; and (2) against B. Velasquez and A. Sawma for a violation of 22 plaintiff’s equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 34.) 23 On February 5, 2024, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 51.) 24 Briefing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment is currently stayed. (ECF No. 54.) 25 On April 16, 2024, the court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling 26 order and reopened discovery “for the limited purpose of requiring defendants to respond to the 27 plaintiff’s six sets of discovery requests served on October 31, 2023, and November 1, 2023.” 28 (ECF No. 57 at 6.) Defendants served responses. 1 Plaintiff filed the motion to compel presently before the court on June 7, 2024. (ECF No. 2 62.) The motion is fully briefed with defendants’ opposition and plaintiff’s reply. (ECF Nos. 69, 3 70.) 4 II. Legal Standards 5 A. Motion to Compel 6 Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may 7 move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 37(a)(3)(B). Such “motion may be made if ... (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory 9 submitted under Rule 33; or (iv) a party fails to produce documents or fails to respond that 10 inspection will be permitted – or fails to permit inspection – as required under Rule 34.” Id. “The 11 party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has 12 the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine 13 Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998). 14 B. Official Information Privilege 15 “Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information.” Sanchez 16 v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. 17 for the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975)). “To determine whether the 18 information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the 19 potential disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the privilege bars discovery.” Sanchez, 936 F.2d 20 1027, 1033-34; see Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (describing 21 the balancing test as “moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure”). The party asserting the 22 privilege properly invokes the privilege by providing a declaration or affidavit from a responsible 23 official with personal knowledge of the matters attested to which makes a “substantial threshold 24 showing” allowing assessment of the privilege assertions. Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 661. 25 C. Privacy Rights 26 Federal courts recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that may be asserted in 27 response to discovery requests. See Breed v. United States Dist. Ct. for Northern District, 542 28 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (balancing the invasion of minor’s privacy rights against the 1 court’s need for ward files); Johnson by Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497 (10th Cir. 2 1992), cert. den. 507 U.S. 910, (1993) (denying discovery of names of participants in a medical 3 study due to privacy interests of the individual participants). The resolution of a party’s privacy 4 objection involves balancing the need for the information sought against the privacy right 5 asserted. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Federal courts should 6 give “some weight” to privacy rights that are protected by state constitutions or statutes. Soto v. 7 City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 656). 8 III. Discussion 9 A. RFP (Set 2) 10 Plaintiff moves to compel defendants to provide further responses to Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11 4, 5, and 6 of plaintiff’s second set of requests for production of documents. (See ECF No. 62 at 12 3-4, 6-8.) 13 Nos. 1 & 3 14 In Request No. 1, plaintiff seeks the log or record showing the time the Code Alarm was 15 pushed after he fell to the ground. (ECF No. 69-11 at 5.) In Request No. 3, plaintiff seeks CDCR 16 forms which he argues CDCR was required by regulation to complete in reviewing a use of force 17 incident. (Id.) Defendants determined there are no responsive documents and responded 18 accordingly. 19 Whether further action is warranted as to Request No. 3 is a close call. CDCR’s 20 regulations suggest that at least some of the requested records should exist. See 15 C.C.R. § 21 3268.1(e)(1) (requiring that CDCR officials complete certain forms requested by plaintiff in 22 reviewing a use of force incident). And while courts may entertain a presumption that agencies 23 follow their own regulations, see Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007), here 24 counsel for defendants specifically states that a diligent search turned up no responsive records. 25 On this record, the court declines to require more of defendnats. See Edeh v. Equifax Information 26 Services, LLC, 2013 WL 3997874, at *8 (D. Minn.) (“Equifax maintains that it does not have the 27 1 Citations to page numbers in the parties’ briefs are to the pages assigned by CM/ECF at the top 28 of the page. 1 documents requested in Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 4. If Equifax does not have the 2 documents in its possession, custody, or control, it cannot be compelled to produce them. Because 3 Edeh has not provided the Court with any concrete basis for believing that Equifax is being 4 untruthful, Equifax's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 4 are sufficient.”); United 5 States v. Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The 6 party seeking the production of documents ... bears the burden of proving that the opposing party 7 has such control.”). Accordingly, the motion is denied as to these requests. 8 Nos. 2 & 4 9 In Request No. 2, plaintiff seeks “CDCR form 3013-2 and CDCR form 3014 that were 10 required for this incident…” (ECF No. 69-1 at 5.) Defendants objected in relevant part, based on 11 the following: 12 [T]he Official Information Privilege, California Government Code section 6254, California Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8, 13 California Evidence Code sections 1040, 1041, and 1043, and Defendants’ common law right to privacy. The documents are also 14 protected by the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, § 3321 (Confidential Material). Disclosure of the requested document, 15 which is confidential in nature, would also compromise the safety and security of the institution, inmates, and staff. 16 17 (ECF No. 69-1 at 5.) Defendants’ privilege log identifies two responsive documents: 18 CDCR Form 3013-2 (Inmate Interview for Allegation Worksheet) for appeal log no. CHCF-E-19-00132 19 CDCR Form 3014 (Report of Findings—Inmate Interview) for 20 appeal log no. CHCF-E-19-00132 21 (ECF No. 69-1 at 9.) 22 In Request No. 4, plaintiff seeks the staff complaint he submitted and “associated 23 confidential and non-confidential inquiries, interviews, statements and findings.” (Id. at 6.) 24 Defendants provided the staff complaint only and otherwise objected, in relevant part, as follows: 25 To the extent Plaintiff’s request seeks inquiries conducted in response to CHCF-E-19-00132, the request seeks information that is 26 protected from disclosure by regulation. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3486.2 (discussing the process of staff misconduct investigations 27 and their confidentiality); see also CDCR Department Operations Manual § 54100.25.2 (outlining confidential staff complaint appeal 28 inquiry process). 1 (Id. at 6.) Defendants’ privilege log identifies one responsive document: 2 Confidential Appeal Inquiry Supplement to appeal log no. CHCF-E- 19-00132 3 4 (ECF No. 69-1 at 9.) 5 Plaintiff argues he has a right to know about misconduct findings. (ECF No. 70 at 6-7.) 6 Defendants counter that the official information privilege and right to privacy are recognized 7 under federal common law and the court can consider state law on privilege to the extent it is 8 consistent with federal law. (ECF No. 69 at 7-9.) 9 Defendants submit the declaration of E. Campos, who is employed by the California 10 Department of Corrections as a Correctional Counselor. (ECF No. 69-1 at 11-15.) According to 11 E. Campos, the documents responsive to Request No. 2 contain the reviewing staff’s conclusions 12 as to whether staff complied with department use of force policy, procedures, and training, and 13 whether any follow-up action is necessary. (Id. at 12, ¶ 6.) The documents responsive to Request 14 No. 4 incorporate the documents responsive to Request No. 2 and additionally contain 15 confidential statements made by staff witnesses and the reviewer’s findings of whether staff 16 violated policy. (Id., ¶7.) 17 According to the declaration of E. Campos, the responsive documents are strictly 18 confidential under state regulations except to staff involved in the inquiry process. (ECF No. 69-1 19 at 12, ¶ 8.) E. Campos declares that disclosure would pose a serious threat to the safety and 20 security of CDCR institutions, its staff, and inmates, by exposing the inner workings of the 21 institution. Specifically, it would “educate inmates on the methods by which staff are evaluated,” 22 contribute to inmates to falsely accusing staff or otherwise manipulating the investigation process, 23 hamper future investigations, hinder the ability of CDCR to investigate potential enemy and 24 custodial concerns, and discourage staff and inmate witnesses from making truthful statements. 25 (Id., ¶¶ 9-11, 15.) 26 According to the declaration of E. Campos, a protective order allowing the documents to 27 be in an inmate’s custody in the prison environment would not suffice to address the risks created 28 by releasing such information to inmates unrepresented by counsel, including the risk of physical 1 violence to plaintiff or inmate witnesses. (ECF No. 69-1 at 14, ¶ 13.) “At a minimum,” Campos 2 declares, “witnesses’ statements and the reviewer’s conclusion/findings should be redacted to 3 protect the integrity of CDCR’s investigative process.” (Id., ¶ 12.) 4 The court is persuaded that CDCR Form 3013-2, CDCR Form 3014, and the Confidential 5 Appeal Inquiry Supplement may be clearly and uniquely relevant to plaintiff’s claims. District 6 courts have required disclosure of similar documents, or, at a minimum, reviewed the documents 7 in camera in other cases where such relevance was found. See generally, e.g., Owens v. Degazio, 8 No. 2:16-CV-2750-JAM-KJN-P, 2020 WL 128517, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2020); Williams v. 9 Bell, No. 1:16-CV-01584-LJO-SAB-PC, 2018 WL 6812502, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2018); 10 Johnson v. Sandy, No. 2:12-CV-2922 JAM AC, 2014 WL 4631642, at *12 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 11 2014). Nevertheless, the court will proceed cautiously given the Campos declaration’s claims that 12 unfettered disclosure of the documents could jeopardize institutional security. Therefore, 13 defendants will be directed to submit the documents for in camera review, after which the court 14 will make a final assessment of relevance, the potential benefits of disclosure versus the potential 15 disadvantages of disclosure, and, if appropriate, the method of disclosure and any redactions. 16 Defendants may move for a protective order, if desired. 17 No. 5 18 In Request No. 5, plaintiff seeks any “Effective Communication form completed by 19 Sawma…” relating to plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 69-1 at 7.) Defendants referred plaintiff to the 20 Effective Communication form already produced. (Id.) Plaintiff argues the form produced is a 21 “fraudulent record” and that there should be a different one which, under regulations, “the 22 inmates must sign and acknowledge[.]” (ECF No. 70 at 8.) Plaintiff does not make a colorable 23 showing that other responsive documents exist and are being withheld. The motion is denied as to 24 this request. 25 No. 6 26 In Request No. 6, plaintiff seeks the record of inmates who were present at the EOP 27 Mental Health Group where Heslop came to see plaintiff. (ECF No. 69-1 at 7.) Defendants 28 produced a redacted copy of the responsive log and otherwise objected, asserting third-party 1 privacy rights under Article I, Section I of the California Constitution and the Health Information 2 Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). (Id. at 8, 10.) The redacted document appears to 3 list a total of 10 inmate names for the 9:00 meeting. (Id. at 10.) Under plaintiff’s allegations, these 4 inmates could have witnessed a portion of the interaction between Heslop and plaintiff on January 5 17, 2019. 6 To the extent defendants raised objections based on the Health Insurance Portability and 7 Accountability Act (HIPAA), HIPAA expressly provides for disclosure of health information in a 8 judicial proceeding in response to a court order. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(i). In this instance, the 9 request does not seek records maintained in patient medical records. Moreover, only the names of 10 the inmates in attendance at the 9:00 meeting must be disclosed. The motion to compel is granted 11 as to the record of inmates present at the 9:00 a.m. EOP Mental Health Group. 12 The parties are prohibited from using or disclosing this protected health information for 13 any purpose other than the litigation of this case. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512. At the conclusion of this 14 litigation, plaintiff shall return the protected health information to defendants’ counsel or destroy 15 the protected information (including all copies made). Id. 16 B. RFP (Set 3) 17 Request No. 1 of plaintiff’s third set of requests for production of documents seeks video 18 camera footage of the January 17, 2019 incident. (ECF No. 69-1 at 18.) Plaintiff asserts video 19 camera footage existed and was destroyed but provides no evidentiary basis for his belief. (ECF 20 No. 62 at 7.) Plaintiff argues defendants should have to explain why the video is unavailable or 21 why mandatory policy was violated. (ECF No. 70 at 11.) However, plaintiff fails to make a 22 colorable showing that the requested video footage exists and is being withheld, or that it 23 previously existed and was lost or destroyed. The motion is denied as to this request. 24 C. Interrogatories 25 Plaintiff first seeks to compel defendant Sawma to respond further to Interrogatory No. 12 26 (“Did you consult with mental health and/or custody officials to identify the Group Room 4 9:00 27 AM female facilitator and two inmates Plaintiff informed you that he wanted to call (Wong and 28 Muhammad)?”) (ECF No. 69-1 at 20.) Sawma responded in relevant part that she “asked a mental 1 health professional to assist me in locating Plaintiff’s requested female psychiatric technician 2 witness, but the professional was unable to locate Plaintiff’s requested witness.” (ECF No. 69-1 at 3 22.) Plaintiff seeks to compel defendant Sawma to provide the name of the mental health 4 professional referenced in the response. (ECF No. 62 at 4, 8.) As defendants correctly argue, 5 though, the interrogatory itself did not expressly seek the information now requested and the 6 response provided is adequately responsive to the interrogatory. The motion to compel further 7 response to Interrogatory 12 is denied. 8 Plaintiff next seeks to compel defendant Sawma to respond further to Interrogatory No. 13 9 to clarify a claimed inconsistency with an earlier interrogatory response. In response to 10 Interrogatory No. 13, Defendant Sawma states, “I am not aware of a section in Title 15 of the 11 California Code of Regulations or CDCR’s Department Operations Manual stating whether a 12 staff assistant can serve a rules violation report on an inmate.” (ECF No. 69-1 at 22.) Plaintiff 13 does not show the response to be inconsistent with a prior response indicating that “Search and 14 Escort Officers designated to issue rules violations reports to inmates” are not prohibited from 15 serving as the inmate’s staff assistant. (See ECF No. 69 at 14.) The motion to compel on this issue 16 is denied. 17 Plaintiff also challenges defendant Heslop’s response to Interrogatory No. 11 as 18 incomplete or evasive. (ECF No. 62 at 4; see also ECF No. 70 at 14.) Interrogatory No. 11 to 19 Heslop asked the following: “After the January 7, 2019 incident how many times did you attend 20 Plaintiff’s Classification Committee’s and Interdisciplinary Treatment Team in the capacity as a 21 Correctional Counselor . . . when not assigned as his official correctional counselor?” (ECF No. 22 69-1 at 26.) Plaintiff asserts Heslop gave a “willfully false statement” in response. If plaintiff 23 believes the statement is not credible or demonstrably false, then plaintiff may attack credibility at 24 trial, by cross-examination. Plaintiff expresses dissatisfaction with the phrasing of the response 25 but fails to show defendant’s phrasing avoided the question or was non-responsive. The motion to 26 compel on this issue is denied. 27 Finally, plaintiff challenges defendant Heslop’s response to Interrogatory No. 13. (ECF 28 1 No. 62 at 4; see also ECF No. 70 at 14-15.)2 Interrogatory No. 13 to Heslop stated the following: 2 “What was so urgent or pressing that you could not wait until after Plaintiff’s mental health 3 treatment therapeutic group to talk to him.” (ECF No. 69-1 at 28.) Helsop responded “I do not 4 contend there was an ‘urgent’ or ‘pressing’ need to talk to Plaintiff on January 7, 2019; therefore, 5 no further response is required.” (Id.) 6 Given plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his interrogatories should be construed broadly by 7 defendants. See Clark v. Smith, Case No. 19-cv-932-RJD, 2021 WL 3033221, at *3 (N.D. Ill., 8 July 19, 2021) (“In light of Plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant, the Court construes this 9 interrogatory broadly and DIRECTS Defendant to do the same.”). Plaintiff’s interrogatory asks 10 about the timing of Heslop’s action with reference to the adjectives “urgent or pressing.” A 11 reasonable reading of this interrogatory is that it is asking why Heslop did not wait until after the 12 group session to talk to plaintiff, as opposed to asking only whether there was literally something 13 urgent or pressing that caused Heslop to act when he did. Heslop can answer the interrogatory by 14 explaining why he acted when he did. The motion to compel on this issue is granted. 15 IV. Conclusion 16 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 17 1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 62) is granted in part as set forth herein as to 18 Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 2, 4, and 6 and Heslop 19 Interrogatory No. 13. 20 2. Within 14 days of the date of this order, defendants shall produce to plaintiff the 21 document responsive to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, No. 6, with 22 unredacted names for the 9:00 meeting. 23 3. Within 14 days of the date of this order, defendants shall produce to the court for in 24 camera review the documents responsive to Request for Production of Documents, Set 25 Two, Nos. 2 and 4, and shall move for any protective order. 26 2 Plaintiff’s motion to compel did not expressly address Interrogatory No. 16 to Heslop. Instead 27 Interrogatory No. 16 is merely referenced in a meet and confer letter attached to the motion. (See ECF No. 62 at 9.) Plaintiff has not properly moved to compel a further response to Interrogatory 28 No. 16 to Heslop. ] 4. Within 14 days of the date of this order, defendants shall serve on plaintiff an 2 amended response to Heslop Interrogatory No. 13 consistent with the court’s 3 construction of that interrogatory. 4 5. Inall other respects, the motion to compel is denied. 5 6. The parties are prohibited from using or disclosing protected health information for 6 any purpose other than the litigation of this case. At the conclusion of this case, 7 plaintiff shall return the document responsive to Request for Production of 8 Documents, Set Two, No. 6 (and all copies made) to defendants’ counsel. 9 | DATED: August 19, 2024 food SEAN C. RIORDAN 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1]