(PC) Hardy v. Santoro ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KRISTIN HARDY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00327-ADA-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 11 DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION TO COMPEL 12 R. MORENO, et al., (ECF No. 127) 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Kristin Hardy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s 18 unreasonable search and seizure claims against defendants Valencia, Moreno, Chavez, Dohs, 19 and Ceballos, based on Plaintiff’s allegations that after Plaintiff was subjected to a full body 20 scan, he was immediately subjected to an additional strip search without justification. (ECF 21 Nos. 22, 42, & 43). 22 On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 127). On 23 December 23, 2022, Defendants filed their opposition. (ECF No. 133). This motion to compel 24 is now before the Court. 25 For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s 26 motion to compel. 27 I. ANALYSIS 28 On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. At issue are: 1) defendant 1 Valencia’s response to Interrogatory No. 24, First Set; 2) defendant Valencia’s response to 2 Interrogatory No. 25, First Set; and 3) defendant Chavez’s response to Request for Admission 3 No. 26, First Set. (ECF No. 127). 4 a. Defendant Valencia’s Response to Interrogatory No. 24, First Set 5 In Interrogatory No. 24, First Set, Plaintiff asked defendant Valencia: 6 CO Valencia, have you ever been investigated regarding staff misconduct and/or a violation of policy, law, or regulation during your time as a correctional officer? (If 7 your answer is “Yes,” state the date of the investigation, the number of investigations, what agency or agencies conducted said investigations, the subject matter, and the 8 results)[.] 9 (ECF No. 133-1, pgs. 20-22). 10 Defendant Valencia objected, but also stated: 11 Subject to and without waiving the above objections, and based on his 12 understanding of the interrogatory, Defendant responds as follows: Presuming that Hardy’s interrogatory seeks information pertaining to law enforcement 13 personnel records that are no longer confidential under Cal. Penal Code § 832.7(b) because they are records relating to a report, investigation or findings 14 of “i) an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace 15 officer; ii) an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or greater bodily injury; iii) any record 16 relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer 17 engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; or iv) any record 18 relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by law enforcement of dishonesty by a peace officer relating to the reporting, 19 investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, 20 including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, 21 filing of false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing evidence,” there is no information responsive to this interrogatory. 22 (ECF No. 133-1, pgs. 38-39). 23 Plaintiff argues that defendant Valencia’s objections are boilerplate, that the 24 interrogatory is relevant, and that law enforcement personnel records of the sort he is seeking 25 are no longer confidential under California law. 26 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion to compel should be denied as to this discovery 27 request because defendant Valencia “fully responded by asserting that [] there was no 28 1 information that was responsive to the interrogatory.” (ECF No. 133, p. 3). “Defendant 2 Valencia now further states that to the best of his recollection and knowledge, he has not been 3 investigated for any misconduct. In addition, Defendant Valencia has never been disciplined, 4 and has been unable to obtain any records regarding any investigations concerning himself.” 5 (Id. at 4). 6 As to this request, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to compel in part. Defendant 7 Valencia responded to this discovery request despite making objections, but he included a 8 qualification that he was responding only as to personnel records that are no longer confidential 9 under California Penal Code § 832.7(b). In his opposition, however, defendant Valencia “now 10 further states” that, to the best of his recollection, he has never been investigated or disciplined 11 for misconduct. While this further response is included in Defendants’ opposition, it does not 12 appear to be included in a response to Plaintiff’s discovery request. Accordingly, the Court 13 will grant the motion to compel insofar as the Court will require defendant Valencia to 14 supplement his response to Interrogatory No. 24, First Set, to include the further substantive 15 response that he included in his opposition. 16 b. Defendant Valencia’s Response to Interrogatory No. 25, First Set 17 In Interrogatory No. 25, First Set, Plaintiff asked defendant Valencia: 18 CO Valencia, besides the administrative appeal filed by Plaintiff Hardy, have you ever been the subject of an administrative appeal regarding staff 19 misconduct, and/or a violation of law, policy, or regulation? (If your answer is “Yes,” state the date the appeal(s) were filed; the subject matter of the appeals; 20 the name and rank of the appeal reviewer and whether the appeal(s) were 21 granted, granted in part, or denied)[.] 22 (ECF No. 133-1, p. 22). 23 Defendant Valencia responded: 24 Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it is not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and is not proportional to the needs of this case. 25 Defendant maintains that this interrogatory is not relevant because the interrogatory does not pertain to Hardy’s claim that Defendant unlawfully 26 searched Hardy’s cell and unclothed body on January 6, 2019 in violation of the 27 Fourth Amendment. This interrogatory is also not proportional to the needs of this case and unduly burdensome because it seeks all inmate appeals, and 28 responding to this interrogatory may require an inmate-by-inmate file search of potentially thousands of inmates. In addition, any complaints filed by other 1 inmates against Defendant would not tend to prove or disprove that Defendant 2 unlawfully searched Hardy’s cell and unclothed body on January 6, 2019 in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Defendant additionally objects to this 3 interrogatory on the basis of privacy because the interrogatory calls for the release of information concerning individuals who are not parties to this lawsuit 4 and may no longer be in the custody of the California Department of Corrections 5 and Rehabilitation. This information is confidential under California Code of Regulations, title 15, sections 3321 and 3402. Furthermore, Defendant objects 6 that the interrogatory seeks information protected by the official-information privilege. See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 7 Finally, Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that 8 is potentially outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, and control 9 (ECF No. 133-1, p. 39). 10 Plaintiff argues that defendant Valencia’s objections are boilerplate. Moreover, his 11 interrogatory is relevant, as his claim in this suit relates to staff misconduct regarding an illegal 12 search. Finally, Plaintiff argues that the relevant records are not confidential under California 13 law, and that defendant Valencia failed to provide a privilege log related to his assertion of the 14 official information privilege as required by court order. 15 Defendant argues that “[w]hether any other inmate has ever filed an administrative 16 appeal against Defendant Valencia for any reason has no relevance to whether Defendant 17 Valencia acted unlawful[ly] during the searches at issue.” (ECF No. 133, pgs. 4-5). 18 Additionally, responding to this request would be unduly burdensome because “[i]dentifying 19 each appeal that names Defendant Valencia could potentially involve a manual search of the 20 appeal and grievance history of each inmate who has ever been housed at an institution where 21 Defendant Valencia worked.” (Id. at 5). Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff is seeking 22 private information related to third parties, and “[a]s this material is not relevant to Plaintiff’s 23 claim, the Court should not infringe on the privacy rights of other inmates by ordering its 24 disclosure.” (Id.). 25 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1): 26 Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant 27 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 amount in 28 controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether 1 the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 2 Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 4 “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request 5 satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the party opposing discovery 6 has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, 7 explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 1390794 at *1 (S.D. Cal. 8 May 14, 2009) (citation omitted). The Court also notes that, while information within the 9 scope of discovery need not be admissible to be discoverable, Federal Rule of Evidence 404 10 places limitations on the use of character evidence. 11 Federal Rule of Evidence 404 states: 12 (a) Character Evidence. 13 14 (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in 15 accordance with the character or trait. 16 . . . 17 (b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts. 18 (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not 19 admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular 20 occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. 21 (2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, 22 preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of 23 accident. 24 Fed. R. Evid. 404(a) & (b). 25 Here, defendant Valencia objected on the basis of relevance, and in his motion to 26 compel, Plaintiff asserts that the request is relevant because his claim relates to staff 27 misconduct. However, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how all (or any) administrative 28 appeals regarding staff misconduct (and/or a violation of law, policy, or regulation) against 1 defendant Valencia, including conduct that occurred both before and after the incidents alleged 2 in the complaint, are relevant to this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to establish that this 3 request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), and 4 the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to this request. 5 c. Defendant Chavez’s Response to Request for Admission No. 26, First 6 Set 7 In Request for Admission No. 26, First Set, Plaintiff asked defendant Chavez to admit 8 that “[t]he confidential information did not implicate Hardy as a suspect in a murder plot at 9 North Kern State Prison, Facility ‘A.’” (ECF No. 127, p. 1). 10 Defendants argue that defendant Chavez initially objected to this request, “[h]owever, 11 in his supplemental response, Defendant Chavez renewed his objections but also substantively 12 responded with an admission. Accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion to 13 Compel a further response to this request for admission as Defendant Chavez has fully 14 responded.” (ECF No. 133, p. 5) (citation omitted). 15 In stating that defendant Chavez has now fully responded, Defendants refer the Court to 16 Exhibit E. However, in Exhibit E, there is no supplemental response to Request for Admission 17 No. 26. Instead, there are only objections. (ECF No. 133-1, p. 84) (“Defendant objects to this 18 request because it is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad as to the term, ‘confidential 19 information,’ such that Defendant cannot respond without speculating as to its meaning. 20 Defendant further objects to this request because it is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad as to 21 time.”). Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion insofar as the Court will require 22 defendant Chavez to fully respond to this request, as defendant Chavez indicated was his 23 intention.1 24 \\\ 25 26 1 The Court notes that the discovery responses attached as Exhibit E are dated September 21, 2022 (ECF 27 No. 133-1, p. 85), while Defendants assert that the supplement that included defendant Chavez’s response was sent on October 26, 2022 (ECF No. 133, p. 2). If Defendants already provided Plaintiff with the full response but 28 attached the wrong supplement to their opposition, Defendants do not need to re-serve defendant Chavez’s supplemental response. enn eee INE I ISIE II III IGE II OS 1 Il. ORDER 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, defendant Valencia 4 shall supplement his response to Interrogatory No. 24, First Set, to include the 5 further substantive response that he included in Defendants’ opposition (see 6 ECF No. 133, p. 4) (“Defendant Valencia now further states that to the best of 7 his recollection and knowledge, he has not been investigated for any 8 misconduct. In addition, Defendant Valencia has never been disciplined, and 9 has been unable to obtain any records regarding any investigations concerning 10 himself.”’). 11 2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, defendant Chavez shall 12 fully respond to Request for Admission No. 26, First Set.” 13 3. Inall other respects, Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 127) is DENIED. 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘6 |! Dated: __ April 4, 2023 [Jee Sy — 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 2 If Defendants already provided Plaintiff with the full response but attached the wrong supplement to their opposition, Defendants do not need to re-serve defendant Chavez’s supplemental response.