(PC) Lewis v. Ugwueze ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARONTA T. LEWIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00596-AWI-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. TO COMPEL 14 DR. G. UGWUEZE, et al., (ECF No. 135) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Daronta T. Lewis (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed May 13, 2022. 20 I. 21 RELEVANT BACKGROUND 22 This action is proceeding against Defendant Dr. Kokor for retaliation in violation of the 23 First Amendment and deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 24 On March 30, 2021, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint. 25 On May 24, 2021, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. 26 On May 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel. Defendant filed an 27 opposition on June 7, 2022. Although the time for a reply has not expired, the Court deems Plaintiff’s motion to compel submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 1 II. 2 LEGAL STANDRD 3 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of 4 confinement. As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would 5 otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior 6 to involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 76. Further, where otherwise 8 discoverable information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or infringe 9 upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in 10 determining whether disclosure should occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. 11 Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (privacy rights or interests implicit in broad purpose and 12 language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the 13 Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing assertion of privilege); Soto v. 14 City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a constitutionally-based 15 right of privacy that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447- 16 LJO-DLB PC, 2012 WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting inmate’s 17 entitlement to inspect discoverable information may be accommodated in ways which mitigate 18 institutional safety concerns); Robinson v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 19 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012) (issuing protective order regarding documents 20 containing information which implicated the safety and security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, 21 No. CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests 22 for protective order and for redaction of information asserted to risk jeopardizing safety and 23 security of inmates or the institution if released); Womack v. Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE 24 EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (requiring defendants to submit 25 withheld documents for in camera review or move for a protective order). 26 /// 27 /// 1 However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The 2 discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of 3 discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 4 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Parties may obtain 5 discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 6 proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the 7 action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ 8 resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 9 expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 10 Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to 11 compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. 12 Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); 13 Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, 14 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 15 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the moving party to inform the Court 16 which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed 17 response, why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party’s objections are 18 not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 19 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4. However, the Court is vested with 20 broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these procedures, Plaintiff is entitled 21 to leniency as a pro se litigant; therefore, to the extent possible, the Court endeavors to resolve 22 his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 23 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett 24 v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 25 III. 26 DISCUSSION 27 Plaintiff has filed a 218 page motion to compel which is difficult to decipher. As best the 1 | and requests for production of documents served on April 8, 2022. Plaintiff's motion must be 2 | denied. Although Plaintiff has attached Defendant’s responses to his April 8, 2022 discovery 3 | requests, Plaintiff has not individually addressed any particular discovery request, nor 4 | demonstrate that any specific response thereto is deficient. Rather, Plaintiff contends that 5 | Defendant “inadequately answered the interrogatory basic first set served and responded 6 | incompletely.” (ECF No. 135 at 2.) “Defendant did not answer whatsoever any of Plaintiff's 7 | discovery requests...” (Id. at 4.) However, in seeking to compel further responses, Plaintiff must 8 | put Defendant on notice as to the alleged deficiencies of each of the responses. Here, based on 9 | the attachments to Plaintiff's motion, Defendants provided timely responses to Plaintiff's requests 10 | for admissions and request for interrogatories, and answered in good faith and to the best of their 11 | ability where appropriate, and make particularized objections. In addition, Defendant submits 12 | that he offered to provide a copy of responsive medical records if Plaintiff signed and returned 13 | the provided authorization for the disclosure of medical records. (Declaration of Matthew 14 | Roman at §] 3, ECF No. 140.) However, as of the June 7, 2022, Plaintiff had not done so. Cd. at 15 | Plaintiff's vague assertion that he is entitled to further responses to his discovery requests is 16 | not sufficient to support the motion to compel. Consequently, Plaintiff's motion to compel is 17 | DENIED. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 20 | Dated: _June 10, 2022 _ ee UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28