Shaw v. Davis ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 NORMAN SHAW, et al., Case No. 3:18-CV-0551-MMD-CLB 5 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND 6 v. DENYING, IN PART, JORDAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL 7 SCOTT DAVIS, et al., 8 Defendants. [ECF No. 154] 9 10 11 Before the Court is Plaintiff Ansell Jordan’s (“Jordan”) motion to compel discovery 12 from Defendant K. LeGrand (“LeGrand”). (ECF No. 154.) LeGrand opposed the motion, 13 (ECF No. 162), and Jordan replied. (ECF No. 168.) Having considered all the above, the 14 motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part, as stated below. 15 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 16 A. Factual Background 17 Jordan is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections 18 (“NDOC”) and is currently housed at the Lovelock Correctional Center (“LCC”). (See 19 ECF No. 39.) Proceeding pro se, Jordan and four other Plaintiffs1 filed the instant civil 20 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that occurred while Plaintiffs were 21 incarcerated at LCC. (ECF Nos. 12, 39.) 22 Plaintiffs allege various claims and seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary 23 relief. Specifically, Plaintiffs sued Defendants Chaplain Scott Davis, Associate Warden 24 Tara Carpenter, RRT Committee Harold Wickham, RRT Committee Richard Snyder, 25 26 27 1 Norman Shaw, Brian Kamedula, Charles Wirth, Ansell Jordan, and Joseph 28 Cowart (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”). 1 Prison Administration,2 Caseworker K. LeGrand, Caseworker J. Ferro, Caseworker C. 2 Potter, Warden Renee Baker, Deputy Director Kim Thomas, John Doe #1, and John Doe 3 #2. (ECF No. 39.) 4 The complaint alleges, in summary, that prior to February 1, 2018, the chapel 5 schedule at LCC accommodated all the various religious faith groups and provided 6 sufficient time and space for each faith group to practice their respective religions. (Id. at 7 3.) On January 18, 2018, Carpenter issued a memo notifying all inmates that a new 8 chapel schedule would be implemented. (Id. at 5.) On January 24, 2018, Davis held a 9 meeting with the religious faith group facilitators and said that major changes were going 10 to be effective February 1, 2018. (Id. at 5-6.) 11 On February 1, 2018, Davis, Carpenter, Wickham, Snyder, Doe #1, and Doe 12 Prison Administration reduced chapel services by over 50% and some faith groups were 13 eliminated completely. (Id. at 6-11.) The five Plaintiffs are members of different faith 14 groups. (Id. at 7-10.) Plaintiffs allege that Episcopal, “The Way,” KAIROS, and Nation of 15 Islam faith groups all suffered either a reduction in chapel time or were eliminated or 16 changed in a manner which placed a substantial burden on each of their abilities to 17 practice the tenets of their religion. (Id.) 18 K. Thomas, Baker, Carpenter, Ferro, LeGrand, and Potter responded that the 19 reasons for the changes were for statewide consistency of the religious program and 20 adequate staff oversight. (Id. at 11-13.) However, LCC chapel services did not and still 21 do not require a chaplain, outside sponsor, correctional officer, or other staff member be 22 present in the chapel for religious services. (Id. at 12-13.) 23 On June 18, 2019, the District Court screened the complaint and allowed Plaintiffs 24 to proceed as follows: (1) in Count I, alleging Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 25 Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”) violations against Defendants Davis, Carpenter, 26 Wickham, Snyder, K. Thomas, Baker, Ferro, LeGrand, Potter, Doe #1 and Doe Prison 27 2 Plaintiffs state that Defendants “Prison Administration” are “Doe” defendants that 28 1 Administration; (2) in Count II, alleging Fourteenth Amendment equal protection 2 violations against Davis, Carpenter, Wickham, Snyder, Doe #1 and Doe Prison 3 Administration; (3) in Count III, alleging RLUIPA and Fourteenth Amendment equal 4 protection violations against Defendants LeGrand, Ferro, Potter, Baker, Carpenter, 5 Thomas, and Doe #2; (4) the portion of Count IV alleging First Amendment 6 Establishment Clause violations against Defendants Wickham, Snyder, Baker, 7 Carpenter, Davis, Doe #1 and Doe Prison Administration; (5) the portion of Count IV 8 alleging First Amendment Free Exercise Clause violations against Defendants Wickham, 9 Snyder, Baker, Carpenter, Davis, Doe #1 and Doe Prison Administration; and, (6) the 10 portion of Count IV alleging 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) conspiracy against Defendants 11 Wickham, Snyder, Baker, Carpenter, Davis, Doe #1 and Doe Prison Administration. 12 (ECF No. 11.) 13 On January 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 39), 14 which is now the operative complaint in this case. The allegations contained in Counts I 15 through IV of the original complaint and the FAC are identical. (Compare ECF No. 12 at 16 5-22, with ECF No. 39 at 3-20.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs were permitted to proceed on 17 Counts I through IV as outlined above. Plaintiffs were also permitted to add Count V 18 alleging retaliation against Defendants Davis and Carpenter. (ECF No. 68.) 19 B. Discovery Process 20 The Court entered the discovery scheduling order which required discovery to be 21 completed by October 20, 2020. (ECF No. 88.) The Court granted two extensions to the 22 scheduling order resulting in discovery ending on April 21, 2021. (ECF Nos. 90, 136.) 23 Due to the complexity created by the number of pro se litigants, the Court took an active 24 role in the discovery process to assist the parties and streamline the litigation. In total, 25 the Court held 4 case management conferences (“CMC”) over the course of this 26 litigation. (See ECF Nos. 101, 135, 145, & 151.) Various discovery issues were 27 addressed at the CMCs. After several attempts by the parties to meet and confer, there 28 were still several issues that could not be resolved. 1 Thus, at the final CMC held on April 28, 2021, the Court set a briefing schedule 2 for each Plaintiff to file an individual motion to compel related to any outstanding 3 discovery requests from Defendants. (ECF No. 151). The Court set forth the 4 requirements for each motion and explicitly indicated that Plaintiffs were not required to 5 include a declaration setting forth the details and results of each disputed discovery 6 request as the Court will assume that the parties have made a good faith effort to meet 7 and confer regarding the discovery disputes. (Id.) 8 The Court also requested that the Office of the Attorney General provide the 9 Court with copies of all discovery requests made in this case, all responses provided, 10 and all the documents provided in response to the discovery requests. The purpose of 11 this request was intended to limit the need for the parties to attach voluminous copies of 12 each discovery request and response as exhibits,3 and to provide the Court with easy 13 access to evaluate whether the documents provided in response to the discovery 14 requests were sufficient. A thumb drive containing these documents was received by the 15 Court on May 27, 2021. (ECF No. 176.) 16 Pursuant to the Court’s Order, Jordan filed the instant motion to compel seeking 17 supplementation of answers to certain Interrogatories and Requests for Production of 18 Documents Jordan served on LeGrand. (ECF No. 152.) 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial Court to permit or deny discovery.” Hallett 21 v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). The scope of discovery encompasses “any 22 nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to 23 the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In analyzing proportionality, the Court 24 must consider the need for the information sought based upon “the importance of the 25 issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to 26 27 3 As the Court is aware, inmates are charged for every copy made at the institution, this request was also intended to reduce the cost of the litigation for the pro se inmate 28 1 relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of discovery in resolving the 2 issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its 3 likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevance is to be construed broadly to include 4 “any matter that bears on, or that could lead to other matter that could bear on” any 5 party’s claim or defense. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) 6 (citation omitted). 7 When a party fails to provide discovery and the parties' attempts to resolve the 8 dispute without Court intervention are unsuccessful, the opposing party may seek an 9 order compelling that discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). However, the party moving for an 10 order to compel discovery bears the initial burden of informing the court: (1) which 11 discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel; (2) which of the responses 12 are disputed; (3) why he believes the response is deficient; (4) why defendants’ 13 objections are not justified; and (5) why the information he seeks through discovery is 14 relevant to the prosecution of this action. Harris v. Kernan, No. 2:17-cv-0680-TLN-KJN- 15 P, 2019 WL 4274010, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2019); see also Ellis v. Cambra, No. 16 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS-PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (“Plaintiff must 17 inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, 18 for each disputed response, inform the court why the information sought is relevant and 19 why defendant's objections are not justified.”). 20 Thereafter, the party seeking to avoid discovery bears the burden of showing why 21 that discovery should not be permitted. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 22 (9th Cir. 1975). The party resisting discovery “‘must specifically detail the reasons why 23 each request is irrelevant’ [or otherwise objectionable,] and may not rely on boilerplate, 24 generalized, conclusory, or speculative arguments.” F.T.C. v. AMG Servs., Inc., 291 25 F.R.D. 544, 553 (D. Nev. 2013) (quoting Painters Joint Comm. v. Emp. Painters Trust 26 Health & Welfare Fund, No. 2:10-cv-1385 JCM (PAL), 2011 WL 4573349, at *5 (D. Nev. 27 2011). Arguments against discovery must be supported by “specific examples and 28 articulated reasoning.” U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Ent., Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428, 432 (D. Nev. 1 2006). 2 III. DISCUSSION 3 A. Interrogatories 2, 3, 10, and 11 4 Jordan’s motion first seeks to compel supplemental answers from LeGrand to the 5 following four interrogatories: 6 Request for Interrogatory Discovery No. 7 Did you meet with or interview any person relating to Informal 8 Grievance No. 2006-30-60931 prior to completing your official response? If so, provide the dates and meetings [that] took place, 2 9 the identify [sic] of the person(s) interviewed, and identify any documents generated as a result of the meeting/interview. 10 Did anyone give you any type of guidance, instruction, or 11 information as to how you should respond to Informal Grievance 12 3 2006-30-60931? If so, identify the person and state with specificity what guidance, instruction or information was provided to you. 13 Did you meet with or interview any person relating to information 14 Grievance No. 2006-30-65900 prior to completing your official 15 10 response? If so, provide the dates and meetings [that] took place, the identify [sic] of the person(s) interviewed, and identify any 16 documents generated as a result of the meeting. Did anyone give you any type of guidance, instruction, or 17 information as to how you should respond to Informal Grievance 18 11 2006-30-65900? If so, identify the person and state with specificity what guidance, instruction or information was provided to you. 19 20 (ECF No. 154 at 4-7.) 21 LeGrand answered each of these interrogatories by essentially stating she did not 22 recall the facts or circumstances relating to the requests. (Id.) 23 With respect to interrogatories, a party may propound interrogatories related to 24 any matter that may be inquired into under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Fed. 25 R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). A party is obligated to respond to the fullest extent possible in writing 26 under oath, and the response must be signed by the answering party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 33(b)(3), (5). An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion 28 or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 33(a)(2). However, if an interrogatory is objectionable, the objection must be stated with 2 specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 3 1981). A district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to require answers 4 to interrogatories. See 8B Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2176 (3d 5 ed. 2021). 6 Here, Jordan argues LeGrand’s answers are based solely on her recollection with 7 no search through any records or documents that might be available. (ECF No. 154.) 8 Jordan also argues LeGrand’s answer should be “no” if there is no evidence. Thus, 9 Jordan requests the Court compel LeGrand to provide supplemental responses to 10 Interrogatories 2, 3, 10, and 11. 11 Defendants assert that LeGrand is entitled to lack definitive knowledge and is not 12 required to conduct an extensive investigation to find some obscure document that may 13 exist to refresh her memory. (ECF No. 162.) 14 A responding party is not generally required to conduct extensive research to 15 answer an interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made. Gorrell v. 16 Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 629, 632 (E.D. Cal. 2013); L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2007 WL 17 2781132, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2007). This does require that the responding party must 18 conduct a search for relevant information and must answer interrogatories after a diligent 19 search. F.D.I.C. v. Halpern, 271 F.R.D. 191, 193-94 (D. Nev. 2010). Thus, a responding 20 party “cannot limit its interrogatory answers to matters within its own knowledge and 21 ignore information immediately available to it or under its control”. Id. 22 When a dispute arises out of the completeness of a search undertaken, 23 particularly when there is an absence of information that would have been expected to 24 be included, the responding party “must come forward with an explanation of the search 25 conducted with ‘sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine whether a 26 reasonable’” search was performed. Cf. V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 332 F.R.D. 356, 366- 27 67 (D. Nev. 2019) (internal citation omitted). 28 1 As such, the Court agrees with Jordan that the responses provided by LeGrand 2 are insufficient to Interrogatories 2, 3, 10, and 11. In response to each of these 3 interrogatories, LeGrand states she simply doesn’t recall information related to the 4 requests. However, LeGrand did not provide any information about what, if any, search 5 she did to locate any documents or records that may be in her possession that could 6 assist her in providing complete answers—such as reviewing any calendars she may 7 maintain, or reviewing any correspondence (such as emails) that may be in her 8 possession related to the specific grievance, or the like. Rather, based on the 9 information provided to the Court, Legrand relied entirely upon her “own knowledge” and 10 did not make any attempt to research any information to assist her in responding. 11 Therefore, the Court orders LeGrand to supplement her responses to 12 Interrogatories 2, 3, 10, and 11, within 30 days of the date of this order, consistent with 13 the requirements stated above.4 If, after making a reasonable inquiry into any available 14 records she is still unable to recall the requesting information, she must provide an 15 answer stating, under oath, that she does not recall and explain the steps taken to 16 search for information relevant to the inquiry. See Milner v. Nat. School of Health Tech., 17 73 F.R.D. 628, 631-33 (E.D. Pa. 1977). (Answers to interrogatories and document 18 requests “must be complete, explicit and responsive. If a party cannot furnish details, he 19 should say so under oath, say why and set forth the efforts used to obtain the 20 information. He cannot plead ignorance to information that is from sources within his 21 control. . . . [A] sworn answer indicating a lack of knowledge and no means of obtaining 22 knowledge is not objectionable.”) 23 B. Interrogatory 15 24 Jordan also seeks an order compelling LeGrand to supplement her response to 25 Interrogatory 15, the full text of the interrogatory and response are as follows: 26 4 It should be underscored that if LeGrand does not maintain any calendar or have 27 any records in her possession or control, she must explicitly state that in her 28 supplemental responses. 1 Identify the Lieutenant who rejected Ansell Jordan’s #76575, 15 2 Emergency Grievance submitted on 5/15/18. 3 Response Plaintiff will need to provide a grievance number; Defendant does not know what grievance is being referred to. 4 5 (ECF No. 154 at 7.) 6 LeGrand’s claim that she could not respond to this interrogatory without the 7 grievance number is disingenuous. LeGrand was provided the inmate’s name, the 8 inmate’s number, the type of grievance (here, an emergency grievance), and the date 9 the grievance was submitted. This is more than sufficient information for LeGrand to 10 conduct a reasonable search in order to provide the necessary information. Therefore, 11 the Court agrees with Jordan and orders LeGrand to supplement her answer to 12 Interrogatory 15. 13 C. Requests for Production 4, 5, 6, and 11 14 Next, Jordan requests an order compelling LeGrand to supplement her responses 15 to Requests for Production of Documents 4, 5, 6, and 11. The full text and responses to 16 these Requests for Production are as follows: 17 Request for Request for Production Discovery No. 18 4 Each and every document relating to any investigations by 19 NDOC/LCC staff relating to Grievance 2006-30-60931. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Response 4 Objection – overly broad, unduly vague, ambiguous and confusing, burdensome, beyond Defendant’s personal knowledge 2 Notwithstanding . . . Defendant produced Grievance 2006-30- 60931, with all documents, identified as Shaw 051: Def. LeGrand 3 Resp. to Jordan RFPD [1] – 004-018, in response to No. 2 above. 4 Further, the Lovelock Correctional Center’s February 1, 2018 Chapel Schedule, the January 18, 2018 memo from Associate 5 Warden Carpenter to all inmates regarding the Chapel Schedule were produced and identified as SHAW 051: Def. Davis Resp. to 6 Shaw RFPD [1] – 003-005, and AR 810 was produced and identified as SHAW 015: Def. Garrett Resp. to Shaw RFPD [1] 034- 7 129. Defendant, however, produced AR 810.3 “Religious Practice 8 Manual,” effective September 5, 2017, identified as SHAW 051: Def. LeGrand Resp. to Cowart RFPD [1] – 014-047. All of the 9 above may be responsive to this request. 10 5 Each and every record, note, email, correspondence, NOTIS entry/document, and/or any other document relating to Grievance 11 no. 2006-30-60931. 12 Response 5 Objection – overly broad, unduly vague, ambiguous and confusing, 13 burdensome, beyond Defendant’s personal knowledge Notwithstanding . . . Defendant produced Grievance 2006-30- 14 60931, with all documents, identified as Shaw 051: Def. LeGrand Resp. to Jordan RFPD [1] – 004-018, in response to No. 2 above. 15 Further, the Lovelock Correctional Center’s February 1, 2018 Chapel Schedule, the January 18, 2018 memo from Associate 16 Warden Carpenter to all inmates regarding the Chapel Schedule 17 were produced and identified as SHAW 051: Def. Davis Resp. to Shaw RFPD [1] – 003-005, and AR 810 was produced and 18 identified as SHAW 015: Def. Garrett Resp. to Shaw RFPD [1] 034- 129, and AR 810.3 “Religious Practice Manual,” effective 19 September 5, 2017, identified as SHAW 051: Def. LeGrand Resp. to Cowart RFPD [1] – 014-047. All of the above may be responsive 20 to this request. 21 6 Each and every proposed responses [sic] relating to Grievance No. 22 2006-30-60931. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Response 6 Objection – beyond Defendant’s personal knowledge Notwithstanding . . . Defendant produced Grievance 2006-30- 2 61144, with all documents, identified as Shaw 051: Def. LeGrand Resp. to Jordan RFPD [1] – 004-018, in response to No. 2 above. 3 Further, the Lovelock Correctional Center’s February 1, 2018 4 Chapel Schedule, the January 18, 2018 memo from Associate Warden Carpenter to all inmates regarding the Chapel Schedule 5 were produced and identified as SHAW 051: Def. Davis Resp. to Shaw RFPD [1] – 003-005, and AR 810 was produced and 6 identified as SHAW 015: Def. Garrett Resp. to Shaw RFPD [1] 034- 129. Defendant, however, produced AR 810.3 “Religious Practice 7 Manual,” effective September 5, 2017, identified as SHAW 051: 8 Def. LeGrand Resp. to Cowart RFPD [1] – 014-047. All of the above may be responsive to this request. 9 11 Each and every document relating to any investigations by 10 NDOC/LCC staff relating to Grievance 2006-30-65900. 11 Response 11 Objection – overly broad, unduly vague, ambiguous and confusing, 12 burdensome, beyond Defendant’s personal knowledge Notwithstanding . . . Defendant produced Grievance 2006-30- 13 65900, with all documents, identified as Shaw 051: Def. LeGrand Resp. to Jordan RFPD [1] – 004-018, in response to No. 9 above. 14 Further, the Lovelock Correctional Center’s February 1, 2018 15 Chapel Schedule, the January 18, 2018 memo from Associate Warden Carpenter to all inmates regarding the Chapel Schedule 16 were produced and identified as SHAW 051: Def. Davis Resp. to Shaw RFPD [1] – 003-005, and AR 810 was produced and 17 identified as SHAW 015: Def. Garrett Resp. to Shaw RFPD [1] 034- 129. Defendant, however, produced AR 810.3 “Religious Practice 18 Manual,” effective September 5, 2017, identified as SHAW 051: 19 Def. LeGrand Resp. to Cowart RFPD [1] – 014-047. All of the above may be responsive to this request. 20 21 (ECF No. 154 at 8-12.) 22 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, “[a] party may serve on any other 23 party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b)” for production of documents “in the 24 responding party's possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). The 25 requesting party “is entitled to individualized, complete responses to each of the 26 [Requests for Production], . . . accompanied by production of each of the documents 27 responsive to the request, regardless of whether the documents have already been 28 produced.’” Womack v. Gibbons, No. 1:19-cv-00615-AWI-SAB-PC, 2021 WL 1734809, 1 at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2021) (citing Louen v. Twedt, 236 F.R.D. 502, 505 (E.D. Cal. 2 2006). Failure to object to requests for production of documents within the time required 3 constitutes a waiver of any objection. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 4 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). 5 Based on the responses provided above, LeGrand produced documents 6 responsive to Jordan’s requests. However, Jordan’s argument seems to be that he 7 should receive proposed responses relating to his grievance from the Grievance History 8 Report entered into NOTIS and/or any suggested responses and LeGrand should be 9 compelled to produce these documents. (ECF No. 154.) 10 LeGrand responded that Jordan is assuming that every grievance contains the 11 Inmate Grievance History Report entered in NOTIS and suggested grievance responses. 12 (ECF No. 162.) LeGrand further states that Jordan does not state any authority 13 mandating every NDOC grievance file contains such documents, and the grievance file 14 was produced. (Id.) 15 In this instance, Jordan has not met his initial burden of establishing that the 16 responses provided are, in fact, deficient. In fact, based on Jordan’s reply, it appears he 17 is not necessarily seeking additional documents, but confirmation from LeGrand that no 18 other documents exist. (ECF No. 168 at 3) (“If there are no other documents to be 19 produced, LeGrand should so state.”). This is not a proper basis or request for a motion 20 to compel. 21 Moreover, the Court has reviewed all the documents provided by LeGrand to 22 Jordan, which are contained on the thumb drive submitted to the Court. (ECF No. 176.) 23 Based on this review, the Court finds that the documents provided are sufficient and 24 appropriately provide the information that was requested. (Id.) 25 For all these reasons, the Court finds that no further supplementation is 26 necessary with respect to Jordan’s Request for Production of Documents 4, 5, 6, and 11. 27 /// 28 /// 1 || IV. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Jordan’s motion to compel production of 3 || discovery, (ECF No. 154), is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as follows: 4 1) As to Jordan’s Interrogatories 2, 3, 10, 11, and 15, the motion is 5 GRANTED. LeGrand must supplement her responses □□ these 6 interrogatories no later than 30 days from the date of this order. 7 2) As to Jordan’s Requests for Production 4, 5, 6, and 11, the motion is 8 DENIED. 9 DATED: August 31, 2021 . 10 11 UNITED satebyiarar JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28