(PC) Cantrell v. Tyson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONNIE LUCKY CANTRELL, No. 2:19-CV-1192-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. TYSON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 19 29). For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff’s motion is denied. 20 The purpose of discovery is to "remove surprise from trial preparation so the 21 parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute." United States v. 22 Chapman Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). Rule 23 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers guidance on the scope of discovery 24 permitted: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged information that 25 is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 26 amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 27 issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 28 / / / 1 outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) 3 4 Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "a party seeking discovery 5 may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection." Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an "evasive or 7 incomplete disclosure, answer, or response." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). "District courts have 'broad 8 discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil 9 Procedure 16.'" Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. 10 Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). 11 The party moving to compel bears the burden of informing the court (1) which 12 discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are 13 disputed, (3) why the party believes the response is deficient, (4) why any objections are not 14 justified, and (5) why the information sought through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of 15 this action. McCoy v. Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv-1808-MJS (PC), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75435, 2016 16 WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-5646-AWI-SMS PC, 17 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24418, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 18 Here, plaintiff claims that defendant has refused to provide certain requested 19 documents, specifically, “Any and All formal and Informal Written Complaints (including but 20 Not Limited to 602 Forms) Against the Defendant alleging Any and All Staff Misconduct that 21 Occurred Prior to September 17th 2018.”1 ECF No. 29, pg. 1. Plaintiff’s motion suffers from two 22 defects. 23 First, plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is extremely vague. The motion is 24 one-page in length and merely includes the request for production and a brief argument as to why 25 the request should not be denied. Plaintiff’s motion to compel does not clarify: (1) which specific 26 request for production is at issue; (2) what defendant’s response to that request for production 27 1 Reproduced as found in plaintiff’s original motion to compel discovery. See ECF 28 No. 29. wOASe 2 tO UV PRIN MINIS MVC OD POI PT Yt VM VI 1 | was; and (3) why that response was deficient. Because it is incumbent on the moving party to 2 | clarify these issues, plaintiff's failure to do so is fatal to his motion. 3 Second, even if the Court were to entertain the merits of plaintiff's request for 4 | production, defendant’s objections to this request are well taken. In his opposition to plaintiff s 5 | motion, defendant objects to the request “on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 6 | and not relevant or proportionate to the claims in this case...” ECF No. 32, pg. 4. Plaintiff 7 | requests all complaints of misconduct against defendant Tyson, regardless of whether those 8 | complaints have anything to do with plaintiffs claims in this case. Such a broad request is likely 9 | to implicate numerous unrelated documents, imposing an undue burden on defendant. Plaintiff 10 | argues that defendant can simply provide him with a list of the various written complaints 11 | identifying the “[t]ype” of staff misconduct alleged. See ECF No. 29, pg. 1. However, parties are 12 | not required to create documents in response to a request for production. See Price v. 13 | Cunningham, No. 1:08-cv-00425-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154881, at *11 (E.D. 14 |} Cal. Oct. 29, 2012). Therefore, the Court would be disinclined to grant plaintiff’s motion to 15 | compel, even if it were not excessively vague. 16 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 29) is denied. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 = | Dated: August 13, 2020 20 1 DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28