(PC) Petillo v. Jasso ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAIAH J. PETILLO, ) Case No. 1:21-cv-01401-JLT-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. ) TO COMPEL 14 REYNALDO JASSO, et al., ) (ECF No. 17) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Isaiah J. Petillo is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed March 23, 2022. (ECF No. 20 17.) 21 I. 22 RELEVANT BACKGROUND 23 This action is proceeding against Defendants Reynaldo Jasso and V. Ochoa for excessive force 24 in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 25 On November 29, 2021, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 10.) 26 On November 30, 2021, the Court set a post-screening settlement conference before Magistrate 27 Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on February 24, 2022. (ECF No. 11.) 28 1 However, on December 23, 2021, Defendants filed a notice to opt-out of the settlement 2 conference. (ECF No. 12.) Therefore, on January 3, 2022, the Court vacated the settlement 3 conference and issued the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.) 4 As previously stated, on March 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel 5 Defendants to answer his first set of interrogatories. (ECF No. 17.) Defendants filed an opposition on 6 April 18, 2022. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff has not yet had an opportunity to respond to Defendants’ 7 opposition, but the Court finds a response unnecessary. Plaintiff’s motion is deemed submitted. Local 8 Rule 230(l). 9 II. 10 LEGAL STANDARD 11 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of 12 confinement. As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would 13 otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to 14 involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. 15 P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 14. Further, where otherwise discoverable information 16 would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or infringe upon a protected privacy 17 interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in determining whether disclosure should 18 occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (privacy 19 rights or interests implicit in broad purpose and language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe 20 Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) 21 (discussing assertion of privilege); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) 22 (recognizing a constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia 23 v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB PC, 2012 WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) 24 (noting inmate’s entitlement to inspect discoverable information may be accommodated in ways which 25 mitigate institutional safety concerns); Robinson v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 26 WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012) (issuing protective order regarding documents 27 containing information which implicated the safety and security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. 28 CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for 1 protective order and for redaction of information asserted to risk jeopardizing safety and security of 2 inmates or the institution if released); Womack v. Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 3 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (requiring defendants to submit withheld documents for in 4 camera review or move for a protective order). 5 However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The 6 discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of 7 discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 8 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Parties may obtain discovery 9 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to 10 the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in 11 controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance 12 of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 13 outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 14 Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel 15 bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV 16 S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at 17 *3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis 18 v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 19 This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the 20 motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why 21 the responding party’s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 22 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4. 23 However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these 24 procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigant; therefore, to the extent possible, the 25 Court endeavors to resolve his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 26 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 27 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 28 1 Il. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to answer his first set of interrogatories 4 |)}numbers 1 through 25. (ECF No. 17.) 5 In response, Defendants submit that they served Plaintiff with responses to his first set of 6 || interrogatories and produced photographs in response to Plaintiff's first set of requests for production 7 || of documents on March 11, 2022 while Plaintiff was housed at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, 8 || California. (Declaration of Sheronda Edwards (Edwards Decl.) 4 3 & Ex. A.) However, on March 1: 9 |) 2022 and March 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed notices of change of address from Kern Valley State Prison | 10 || Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, California. (ECF Nos. 16, 18.) Consequently, on April 18, 2022, 11 || Defendants re-served Plaintiff with their responses to his first set of interrogatories at his new mailing 12 || address Corcoran State Prison. (Edwards Decl. {] 6 & Ex. B.) Because Defendants have served 13 || Plaintiff with responses to his first set of interrogatories at both his prior and current address of recor¢ 14 || there is nothing to compel and Plaintiff's motion shall be denied.! 15 IV. 16 ORDER 17 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed 18 || March 23, 2022 (ECF No. 17), is DENIED. 19 20 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Hl (re 21 lI Dated: _ April 19, 2022 OF 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 ||! However, the Court does not find merit to Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer with them pric to filing the instant motion to compel, as the court's discovery and scheduling order specifically exempts this case from th 28 || requirements of Local Rule 251, which includes the meet and confer requirement. (ECF No. 14 at 2.)