(PC) Casteneda v. Quiring ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LORENZO CASTENEDA, No. 2:21-cv-2196 DAD KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J.QUIRING, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 13, 2023, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to Compel Production 18 of Documents.” Plaintiff seeks production of two grievance forms he claims raise issues similar 19 to those alleged herein. Defendants oppose the motion noting that the two grievances do not raise 20 issues similar to those alleged herein and offer to submit the grievances for in camera review. As 21 discussed below, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 22 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 23 Plaintiff, under the EOP level of mental health care, alleges that on two separate 24 occasions in April of 2021, defendants J. Quiring, K. McTaggart, J. Rowe, and S. Medina 25 conspired to violate plaintiff’s Eighth and First Amendment rights by handcuffing plaintiff’s 26 hands extremely tight behind his back and placing him in a small stand up cage with no seat and 27 without water or restroom breaks for four hours and eight hours, respectively, while mocking 28 plaintiff and telling him to file an appeal like plaintiff “always” does. (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff also 1 alleges that defendants K.E. Chamberlin and M.K. Arteaga, both LVNs, refused to render 2 plaintiff medical care while he was in the cage and conspired with the other defendants in 3 violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 36 at 6-7.) 4 Standards 5 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 26(b)(1). The Court has broad discretion to manage discovery. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 7 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); Jeff D. v. Otter, 643 F.3d 278, 289 (9th Cir. 8 2011) (citing Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). 9 Request for Production No. 1 10 Produce complains of misconduct contained in Defendants personell [sic] file and in the appeals coordinator-office records made against 11 Defendant that are sufficiently similar to the plaintiff claims in the law suit, including grievances, appeals, notices of progressive 12 discipline, adverse personell [sic] action, counseling, reprimand, and remedial training, related to inmates complaints against Defendant 13 K.E. Chamberlin alleging refusal to render medical-care, and refusal to report and document inmates injuries in a CDCR 7219 injury form. 14 Response to Request for Production No. 1 15 Defendants object to this request as compound. Defendants further 16 object to this request as vague and ambiguous, specifically with respect to the terms “complains,” “sufficiently similar,” “progressive 17 discipline,” “adverse personal action,” “counseling,” “reprimand,” and “remedial training.” 18 Defendants further object to this request because it seeks information 19 that is not proportional to the needs of this case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in 20 controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the 21 proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 22 Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the official- 23 information privilege, the disclosure of which would create a hazard to the safety and security of the institution, prison officials, and 24 inmates, and violate privacy rights afforded to prison officials and inmates, because it seeks grievances or complaints submitted by 25 inmates who have not consented to the release of their grievances, and that are protected by state and federal privacy laws, including the 26 official-information privilege, California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3370, and California Penal Code sections 832.7 and 27 832.8. Defendants further object to this request on the ground that it seeks confidential peace officer personnel information protected by 28 the official information privilege, California Government Code 1 section 6254, and California Evidence Code sections 1040, 1041, and 1043. 2 Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendants respond 3 to this request as follows: No confidential documents will be produced. A privilege log has been provided and attached hereto. 4 5 || (ECF No. 57 at 5-6.) Plaintiff provided a copy of defendants’ privilege log. (ECF No. 56 at 5- 6 | 6) 7 || Discussion 8 As argued by defendants, the two grievances at issue are not sufficiently similar to g || demonstrate they would be probative of plaintiffs claims in this action. In grievance MCSP SC 10 || 21000070, the inmate complained that MCSP nursing staff refused to give the inmate an extra 11 || estrogen patch which was received in the inmate’s supply of estrogen patches. In grievance 12 | MCSP SC 22000098, the inmate complained that numerous mental health service forms went 13 || missing. Such grievances are not relevant to plaintiffs claims in this action, and do not appear 14 | likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information. Defendants’ objection is sustained, and 15 | plaintiffs motion to compel is denied. No further production is required. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. .56) 17 || 1s denied. 18 || Dated: December 21, 2023 19 Ad 0 KENDALL]. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 /cast2196.mtc3 22 23 24 25 26 27 28