(PC) Hackworth v. Arevalos ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT HACKWORTH, Case No. 1:19-cv-01362-DAD-BAK (EPG) (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 13 v. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 14 E. AREVALOS, et al., (ECF No. 62) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Robert Hackworth has filed a pleading captioned a “Motion of Objection to the 18 Defendant Denial of Plaintiff Request of Production of Documents Set One,” which the Court 19 construes as a motion to compel. (ECF No. 62.) Defendants filed a response in opposition. 20 (ECF No. 64.) 21 Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ denials that the requests were 22 [v]ague and ambiguous . . . overly broad and unduly burdensome/irrelevant 23 information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence: seeks inadmissible character evidence. . . . Defendant’s personnel files 24 call for information protected by [California law]. The [re]quest also seeks information that may contain confidential and private information about other 25 inmates’ medical conditions, custody classifications, and other sensitive 26 information the disclosure of which would create a hazard to the safety and security of the institution and violate the inmate’s rights to privacy and 27 confidentiality and this request seeks documents that are irrelevant to any claim or defense in this action and are unlikely to contain admissible evidence. 1 reasonable, sought nonprivileged information, was relevant to a claim or defense, shows a 2 pattern of wrongdoing, and is not unduly burdensome. Plaintiff adds that any confidential 3 information can be subject to a protective order. (Id. at 2.) 4 A party may serve on any other party a request to produce documents, electronically 5 stored information, or tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). If a party fails to produce requested 6 documents, the party seeking discovery may file a motion to compel a response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 37(a)(3)(B). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a 8 failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The moving party must “state 9 the relief sought” and provide “with particularity the grounds for seeking” the relief. Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 7(b)(1). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating “actual and substantial 11 prejudice” from the denial of discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 12 2002) (citations omitted). 13 The Court does not hold prisoners proceeding pro se to the same standards that it holds 14 attorneys. Waterbury v. Scribner, No. 1:05-cv-0764 OWW DLB PC, 2008 WL 2018432, at *1 15 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2008). However, Plaintiff has the burden to inform the Court (1) which 16 discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are 17 disputed, (3) why the party believes the response is deficient, (4) why any objections are not 18 justified, and (5) why the information sought through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of 19 this action. Wilkins v. Macomber, No. 2:16-CV-0475-TLN-DMC-P, 2022 WL 428965, at *1 20 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2022) (citing McCoy v. Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv-1808-MJS (PC), 2016 WL 21 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016)); Ransom v. Marquez, No. 1:10-cv-00397-AWI, 2015 22 WL 1011706, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2015). 23 Here, Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of 24 the motion to compel and which of the responses are disputed. Plaintiff’s production requests 25 and Defendants’ responses are neither set forth within the motion nor submitted as an 26 attachment. Because of this, the Court is unable to assess the relevance of the discovery sought 27 1 | or the sufficiency of Defendants’ responses. Additionally, Plaintiff has not demonstrated actual 9 | and substantial prejudice from the denial of discovery. 3 Should Plaintiff continue to seek this discovery, he is granted leave to refile, within 4 | thirty (30) days, a renewed motion that provides the information discussed above. 5 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 62) 6 | is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 | Dated: □ March 9, 2022 [see hey 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28