(PC) Hardy v. Santoro ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 8 KRISTIN HARDY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00327-ADA-EPG (PC) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 10 COMPEL NON-PARTIES CALIFORNIA v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 11 REHABILITATION ARCHIVES UNIT AND R. MORENO, et al., NORTH KERN STATE PRISON TO 12 PRODUCE DOCUMENTS Defendants. 13 (ECF No. 105) 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, and 19 || Ceballos, based on Plaintiffs allegations that after Plaintiff was subjected to a full body scan, he 209 || was immediately subjected to an additional strip search without obvious justification. (ECF Nos. 91 || 22,42, & 43). 22 On October 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel non-parties California 23 || Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Archives Unit (“Archives Unit”) and North Kern 24 || State Prison (“NKSP”) to produce documents. (ECF No. 105). In an order entered on November 25 || 18, 2022, the Court ruled on the motion as follows: 6 [It] is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, WITHDRAWN in part, and HELD IN ABEYANCE in part. 27 a. As to Plaintiff's request to compel the Archives Unit to produce 28 _|- 1 documents, Plaintiff had indicated he now withdraws that motion. 2 b. As to Plaintiff's request for employment status records for defendant 3 Ceballos, which is listed as request No. 1 on the subpoena to NKSP, Plaintiff's motion is granted in that NKSP is required to produce records 4 indicating that defendant Ceballos resigned or was terminated only if those records specifically reference the searches described in the complaint 5 between January 1, 2019, through January 6, 2019. If any such records exist, NKSP may redact personally sensitive information, such as 6 defendant Ceballos’s social security number and birthdate. If NKSP 7 believes that the record(s) are sensitive and need heightened protection, it may file a motion seeking such relief. If no responsive records exist, the 8 supplemental response should indicate that NKSP conducted a reasonable 9 search and that no such records exist. 10 c. As to Plaintiffs request for cell search records for Plaintiff's cell occurring between January 1, 2019, and January 6, 2019, which is listed as request 11 No. 2 on the subpoena to NKSP, Plaintiff's motion is denied as moot. 12 d. As to Plaintiffs request for holding cell logs/records that indicate the name and rank of the officer(s) that supervised Plaintiff while he was detained in 13 the gym holding cell on January 6, 2019, which is listed as request No. 3 14 on the subpoena to NKSP, the Court will defer ruling on Plaintiffs motion. However, the request is granted in that the documents were also requested 15 from Defendants, and defense counsel shall undertake a further inquiry for responsive documents based on the documents identified by Plaintiff, 16 including the confidential appeal inquiry. No later than December 15, 2022, Defendants shall supplement their response with either a further 17 production or information regarding the efforts undertaken to search for the 18 documents and a statement that no responsive documents were found. Defendants shall also file a copy with the Court. After receiving a copy of 19 the filing, the Court will rule on Plaintiffs motion to compel NKSP as to this request. 20 e. As to Plaintiffs request for emails/electronically stored information 21 regarding program status report(s) regarding the searches of Facility A that 79 were issued and authorized between the dates of January 1, 2019, through January 6, 2019, which is listed as request 4 on the subpoena to NKSP, the 23 Court will defer ruling on Plaintiff's motion. However, the request is granted in that the documents were also requested from Defendants, and 24 defense counsel shall undertake a further inquiry for responsive documents. No later than December 15, 2022, Defendants shall supplement their 25 response with either a further production or information regarding the 26 efforts undertaken to search for the documents and a statement that no responsive documents were found. Defendants shall also file a copy with 27 the Court. After receiving a copy of the filing, the Court will rule on Plaintiff's motion to compel NKSP as to this request -2- 1 f. As to Plaintiffs request for sanctions against the Archives Unit and NKSP, 7 it is denied because Plaintiff has not presented any evidence of spoliation or sanctionable conduct. 3 (ECF No. 118, pgs. 2-3). 4 As discussed above, the Court held in abeyance Plaintiffs motion to compel as to: 5 1) Plaintiffs request for holding cell logs/records that indicate the name and rank of the 6 officer(s) that supervised Plaintiff while he was detained in the gym holding cell on 7 January 6, 2019, which is listed as request No. 3 on the subpoena to NKSP; and 2) 8 Plaintiffs request for emails/electronically stored information regarding program status 9 report(s) regarding the searches of Facility A that were issued and authorized between the 10 dates of January 1, 2019, through January 6, 2019, which is listed as request 4 on the Il subpoena to NKSP. 12 On December 15, 2022, Defendants filed their supplemental response. (ECF No. 13 130). As to Plaintiff's request for holding cell logs/records that indicate the name and 14 rank of the officer(s) that supervised Plaintiff while he was detained in the gym holding 15 cell on January 6, 2019, Defendants’ state as follows in their supplemental response: 16 Defendants object to this request because it is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad as 17 to the term “civil complaint,” such that Defendants cannot respond without speculating as to its meaning. Defendants further object to this request because it 18 is compound, as it requires Defendants to respond to multiple requests. 19 Subject to and without waiving the above objections, and based on their understanding of the request, Defendants respond as follows: After a diligent 20 search and reasonable inquiry, Defendants have not located any responsive 4 documents. Defendants contacted J. Pasion, the Litigation Coordinator at North Kern State Prison, to request whether there were any holding cell logs related to y g g 92 Hardy’s complaint regarding the institution-wide search on January 6, 2019. Defendants also requested from Mr. Pasion whether there were any holding cell 23 logs indicating the name and rank of the officers that supervised Hardy while detained in the holding cell on January 6, 2019, including the amount of time 24 Hardy was detained in that cell. Mr. Pasion informed Defendants that no such logs 95 existed, and he also provided a declaration from Captain A. Guillen that there were no holding cell logs or records documenting Hardy’s time in the holding cell on g g g y 26 January 6, 2019. (AGO 0572.) 27 || (ECF No. 130, p. 6). 28 As to Plaintiffs request for emails/electronically stored information regarding -3- 1 || program status report(s) regarding the searches of Facility A that were issued and 2 || authorized between the dates of January 1, 2019, through January 6, 2019, Defendants 3 || state as follows in their supplemental response: 4 Defendant objects to this request because it is unduly burdensome, as it seeks production of “all” documents, and responding to this request may require a search 5 of potentially thousands of e-mails. Defendant further objects to this request 6 because it is compound, as it requires Defendants to respond to multiple requests. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected 7 by the official-information privilege. See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 8 Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Defendants respond as 9 follows: Defendants produce e-mails sent on January 6, 2019, by Sergeant Moreno 10 and Angelo Flores regarding searches related to the program status reports issued between January | and 6, 2019. Defendants also produce three memoranda, 11 attached to these e-mails and dated January 6, 2019, regarding the results of the searches conducted on January 6, 2019. (AGO 053-061.) 12 3 (ECF No. 130, pgs. 7-8). Thus, Plaintiff has received supplemental responses from Defendants to the 14 requests at issue, including copies of emails and attachments to those emails. Given the 15 supplemental responses from Defendants, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to compel 16 as to request Nos. 3 and 4 on the subpoena to NKSP. 17 As discussed above, the other requests in Plaintiff's motion to compel non-parties 18 Archives Unit and NKSP to produce documents have already been resolved. 19 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 105) is 20 DENIED as to the following requests: 21 1) Plaintiffs request for holding cell logs/records that indicate the name and rank 22 of the officer(s) that supervised Plaintiff while he was detained in the gym 23 holding cell on January 6, 2019, which is listed as request No. 3 on the 24 subpoena to NKSP; and 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 _4- 1 2) Plaintiffs request for emails/electronically stored information regarding 2 program status report(s) regarding the searches of Facility A that were issued 3 and authorized between the dates of January 1, 2019, through January 6, 2019, 4 which is listed as request 4 on the subpoena to NKSP. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _December 27, 2022 [spe ey □□ 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _5-