Williams v. Ortega ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 18cv547-LAB-MDD 11 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 13 O. ORTEGA, et al., [ECF No. 108] Defendants. 14 15 16 On December 9, 2020, Lance Williams (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner 17 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983, moved the Court to impose sanctions upon Defendants for 19 withholding documents responsive to his document requests in request for 20 production of documents, set three, numbers 2 and 3. (ECF No. 108). 21 Defendants filed a response in opposition, arguing that they produced all 22 responsive documents in their possession, custody, and control, and that they 23 otherwise validly objected to the requests. (ECF No. 110). For the reasons 24 stated herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request pursuant to Federal 25 Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), but ORDERS Defendants to: (1) conduct a 26 further search of responsive documents to Plaintiff’s requests for production 1 the prior production in this case; and (3) file a declaration with the Court 2 explaining whether their production complies with Federal Rule of Civil 3 Procedure 26(g). 4 I. LEGAL STANDARD 5 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain 6 discovery of "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or 7 defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 26(b)(1). "Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in 9 evidence to be discoverable." Id. District courts have broad discretion to 10 limit discovery where the discovery sought is "unreasonably cumulative or 11 duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more 12 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 13 A party may request the production of any document within the scope 14 of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). "For each item or category, the response 15 must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as 16 requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons." Fed. R. 17 Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce responsive 18 information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must be 19 completed no later than the time specified in the request or another 20 reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state 21 whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that 22 objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must 23 specify the part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. The 24 responding party is responsible for all items in "the responding party's 25 possession, custody, or control." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Actual possession, 26 custody or control is not required. Rather, "[a] party may be ordered to 1 legal right to obtain the document or has control over the entity who is in 2 possession of the document." Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 3 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 4 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c), a party that fails to 5 provide responsive documents it has in its possession, custody, or control, “is 6 not allowed to use that information . . . to supply evidence on a motion, at a 7 hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is 8 harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). In the event a party wrongfully withholds 9 responsive information, sanctions may be imposed under Rule 26(g)(3) 10 against anyone who signed the response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(A)-(3). 11 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 12 Plaintiff propounded requests for production, set three, around June 13 4, 2020. (ECF No. 65 at 2). As relevant to the instant motion, request 14 number two asks Defendants to produce “all healthcare appeal grievances . . . 15 in the personnel files of all named defendants for actions that are claimed 16 against them in this complaint.” (ECF No. 55 at 14). Plaintiff specifies that 17 for Defendant Valencia, that includes “acts of deliberate indifference to 18 medical and mental health care, failure to act, failure to report incident, 19 failure to protect, dishonesty, falsifying discipline reports, fabrication of 20 charges and evidence, retaliation.” (Id. at 15). Request number three asks 21 Defendants to produce “[a]ll 602 appeal grievances custody and medical filed 22 on R. Valencia by Plaintiff Lance Williams.” (Id. at 15). 23 On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to 24 respond to his requests for production set three. (ECF No. 55). Defendants 25 indicated that they would provide a response to Plaintiff’s third set on or 26 before September 7, 2020. (ECF No. 65 at 2). Accordingly, the Court denied 1 On September 22, 2020, Plaintiff moved to compel Defendants to 2 respond to his third set of requests for production of documents, numbers 1 3 and 2. (ECF No. 78). However, in moving to compel production of documents 4 responsive to request number 2, Plaintiff only sought “citizen complaints” in 5 the personnel files of all named defendants. (ECF No. 78). Defendants 6 objected on the ground that the term “citizen complaints” is “vague and 7 ambiguous.” (ECF No. 80 at 3). The Court sustained Defendants’ objection. 8 (ECF No. 81). 9 On September 24, 2020, Defendants supplemented their response to 10 Plaintiff’s third set of requests for production of documents. (ECF No. 111 at 11 14). With respect to request number 3, Defendants objected on the grounds 12 that the requested documents “are equally available to Plaintiff as part of his 13 own prison Central file or by request through the prison appeals office.” (Id.). 14 Notwithstanding the objection, Defendants produced CDCR 602 Log No. 15 RJD-A-18-02815 and CDCR 602 Log No. RJD-A-03783 and noted that “there 16 are no other responsive documents.” (Id.). 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 Plaintiff argues Defendants failed to produce healthcare grievances he 19 filed against Defendant Valencia. In support, Plaintiff attaches 602-HC 20 grievances in his possession that Defendants did not produce. (ECF No. 108 21 at 23-47). The grievances in Plaintiff’s possession are responsive to request 22 numbers 2 and 3 because they are healthcare grievances filed by Plaintiff 23 against Defendant Valencia. (See ECF No. 55 at 14-15). Defendants concede 24 that they did not produce these healthcare grievances. (See ECF No. 111 at 25 3). They argue they do not have possession, custody, or control over these 26 healthcare grievances and that they validly objected to Plaintiff’s request on 1 ||further contend the Court should uphold its prior Order sustaining their 9 || objection to request number 2 on the grounds that it is vague. (Ud. at 2). 3 First, Defendants’ objection to request number 2 was raised in 4 ||response to Plaintiffs use of the term “citizen complaints.” (ECF No. 80 at 3). 5 the extent Defendants claim that the term “healthcare appeal grievances” 6 vague, that objection is overruled. Defendants’ second objection is also 7 ||meritless. There may be value in determining whether Defendants had g documents in their possession, custody, or control despite Plaintiff also 9 || having access to them. 10 The fact that Defendants could not find grievances against named 11 ||defendants in this action begs credulity and the Court is concerned about 12 Defendants’ record keeping and search for records. Notwithstanding these 13 ||concerns, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is in possession of these 14 |}documents. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request to impose 15 ||monetary sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) 16 || because the failure to produce was harmless. Instead, the Court ORDERS 17 || Defendants to: (1) conduct a further search of responsive documents to 18 || Plaintiff's requests for production of documents, set three, numbers 2 and 3; 19 ||(2) conduct a thorough review of the prior production in this case; and (8) file 909 ||a declaration with the Court explaining whether their production complies 91 || with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) on or before January 8, 2021. 99 IT IS SO ORDERED. 93 ||Dated: December 29, 2020 . Mitel © fou Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27