(PC) Johnson v. Lizarraga ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MICHAEL WAYNE JOHNSON, Case No. 2:18-cv-3101-JDP (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL 11 v. ECF No. 28 12 JOE A. LIZARRAGA, et al., ECF No. 35 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, a state prisoner without counsel, alleges that defendants Reynols and Vernon, 20 who were prison employees, prevented him from receiving necessary medication. He asks that 21 the court order defendants to respond to a request for production, which seeks personnel records, 22 including complaints filed against defendants. He also asks that the court review defendants’ 23 personnel files in camera. I find plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the relevance of the 24 documents at issue, and that plaintiff’s request is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of 25 the case. Accordingly, I will deny plaintiff’s motions. 26 27 28 1 Posture 2 The court issued a discovery and scheduling order on July 20, 2020, setting January 1, 3 2021, as the end date for discovery, with discovery requests to be served by October 20, 2020, 4 ECF No. 24 at 4. On August 9, 2020, plaintiff served defendants with his first set of requests for 5 production. ECF No. 28 at 15. Defendants responded on September 8, 2020. ECF No. 28 at 2. 6 Plaintiff then sent a letter to defense counsel requesting supplementation of the responses; he 7 alleges that defendants did not respond. Id. at 15. On December 21, 2020, plaintiff filed a 8 document titled “Motion to Compel and Reply,” requesting “personnel files to be submitted to the 9 court for in camera review to determine relevancy.” ECF No. 28 at 26. Defendants have filed an 10 opposition, ECF No. 32, to which plaintiff has not responded. On April 22, 2021, plaintiff filed a 11 renewed motion to compel, repeating arguments from the motion filed in December 2020. ECF 12 No. 35.1 13 Legal Standard 14 The scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) is broad. Parties 15 can obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 16 defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the 17 discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. 18 Generally, if a responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to 19 compel bears the burden of demonstrating that the objections are unjustified. See, e.g., Grabek v. 20 Dickinson, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan.13, 2012); Womack v. Virga, 2011 WL 21 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011). This requires the moving party to inform the court 22 which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed 23 response, why the information sought is relevant and why the objections lack merit. Grabek, 24 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3. The opposing party is “required to 25 1 Plaintiff’s motions ask the court to order defendants to produce documents for Request for Production Number One. Plaintiff’s initial motion also included what the court believes to be 26 an attachment demonstrating that plaintiff sent defendants correspondence asking them to respond 27 to all three of his requests for production. ECF No. 28 at 2-13. However, the court does not understand plaintiff’s motions to raise arguments relating to plaintiff’s other requests for 28 production. See ECF No. 28 at 1-13; ECF No. 35 at 1-3. 1 carry a heavy burden of showing why discovery was denied.” Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 2 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). The court has broad discretion to manage discovery, although 3 plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigant. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 4 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); 5 Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 6 Analysis 7 Plaintiff’s Request for Production Number One seeks “[a]ny and all formal and informal 8 written complaints (including by not limited to CDCR 602 Forms, Citizen Complaints, etc.) 9 against Defendant [], alleging misconduct from the start of employment at MCSP, to present 10 (including all written responses, appeals, reports, investigations, and/or correspondence regarding 11 complaints).” ECF No. 28 at 37. Defendants represent that they did in fact produce the relevant 12 documents pertaining to the allegations in this case. ECF No. 32 at 3; ECF No. 28 at 40-41. 13 Defendants further argue that plaintiff failed to make a proper request for production of 14 defendants’ personnel files and only requested production of formal and informal written 15 complaints alleging misconduct. ECF No. 32 at 2. Defendants objected that plaintiff’s request 16 was overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case, and that the requested documents 17 were not relevant. Id. 18 The court finds that plaintiff failed to limit his requests for production and has not 19 demonstrated that the documents requested are proportional to the needs of this case. See 20 Jackson v. Yates, Case No. 1:11c-v-00080-LJO-BAM (PC), 2014 WL 130478, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 21 Jan. 13, 2014) (stating that locating requests for all staff complaints accusing defendant of 22 excessive force “would require a search of the files for every inmate ever housed in a facility 23 where [defendant] was employed” and was thus not proportional to the needs of the case). Here, 24 plaintiff is requesting all complaints from the start of defendants’ employment to present; this is 25 not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff has failed to establish the relevance of this 26 evidence or its possible admissibility. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1); see also Bratton v. Shinette, 27 No. 2:16-cv-1084-EFB-P, 2018 WL 4929736, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2018) (denying a motion 28 to compel based on similar objections to a virtually identical request for production). The court 1 | agrees with defendants that production of all prior complaints against them would be unlikely to 2 | help plaintiff establish that defendants acted unlawfully in this instance. See Blue v. Grannis, No. 3 | CIV-S-05-1256-GED-EFB-P, 2007 WL 2758025, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2007) (“[E]vidence 4 | of prior accusations against defendant do not bear on any material issue in this matter. Nor does 5 || it appear that the request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.”). 6 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel responses to his Request for Production 7 | Number One as well as plaintiff's request for in camera review of the documents at issue are 8 | DENIED. 9 19 | TPIS SO ORDERED. 11 ( _ 0 Dated: _ May 14, 2021 Q——— JEREMY D. PETERSON 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28