(PC) Anderson v. Kernan ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HECTOR ANDERSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-00255-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 14 H. ANGLEA, (Doc. 72) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel discovery. Plaintiff seeks a video of Defendant 18 Anglea speaking on April 24, 2019, on the topic of “Integration.” Plaintiff argues that the video is 19 relevant because it concerns facts regarding elements in the complaint; the video is a 20 memorialization; Anglea’s demeanor may demonstrate an element in Plaintiff’s favor; and the 21 video may contain a confession or admission as to Plaintiff’s allegations. (Doc. 92 at 2.) 22 Defendant objects to the production as not relevant to the claims and defenses raised in this case. 23 (Doc. 93.) 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) defines the scope of discovery as follows: Parties 25 may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or 26 defense and proportional to the needs of the case. . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(1). The court must limit 27 discovery if “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing 1 that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the party 2 opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the 3 burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Gleason v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & 4 Rehab., No. 2:20-cv-00775-KJM-CKD-P, 2021 WL 4061653, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2021) 5 (quoting Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 07-cv-0200 JM (PCL), 2009 WL 1390794 at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 6 14, 2009)). 7 Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of showing that his request is relevant and 8 discoverable. His reasons for seeking discovery of the April 24, 2019, video are speculative. The 9 video was produced almost a year after the May 17, 2018, incident. In his complaint, Plaintiff 10 attributes the riot to “overcrowding, too much inmate movement, and not enough staff, escape 11 routes, or safety zones repeatedly erupted into race based . . . uncontrollable volatile mass 12 casualty violent riots.” (Doc. 1 at 13.) Plaintiff does not allege that racial integration or lack of 13 racial integration caused or contributed to the riot or racial violence. 14 On this record, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the video is within the scope of 15 discovery. Accordingly, his motion to compel the video is DENIED. 16 Plaintiff also seeks production of a Daily Program Status Report dated August 21, 2017. 17 Defendant states that the document has already been produced but another copy will be provided. 18 Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the status report is DENIED as moot. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: September 17, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 21 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28