Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Adams

January 14, 2010

MARCUS R. WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DERRAL G. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HIS THIRD REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

(Doc. 97)

Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel

I. Introduction

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Marcus R. Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed October 13, 2006, against Defendants Adams, Hansen, Wan, and Beeler for violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff's claim against Defendants arises out of the alleged denial of adequate outdoor exercise and confinement to a cell for twenty-three and one half to twenty-four hours a day from January 2004 to June 2005 at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran, California.

On May 4, 2009, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motions to compel, and granting Plaintiff additional time sufficient to propound one final round of discovery and, if necessary, file a motion to compel. On July 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his third request for the production of documents, numbers 13-18 and 20-27. Defendants filed an opposition on August 17, 2009. Plaintiff did not reply, and the motion has been deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Motion to Compel PODs 13-18 and 20-27

"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). For document production requests, responding parties must produce documents which are in their "possession, custody or control." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).

POD 13: Plaintiff seeks memoranda, reports, minute orders, and other documents relating to any communications between Defendants Adams, Hansen, Wan, and Beeler for the purpose of reviewing yard access and outdoor exercise at CSATF, Facility C, between January 2004 and May 2005.

Defendants responded that a diligent search and inquiry was conducted, and all documents described in the request were already produced to Plaintiff. With respect to Plaintiff's argument that Defendants failed to produce subparts D & E, Defendants explained in their opposition to his motion to compel that not every Program Status Report contains all subparts. (Doc. 97, Motion, court record p. 6; Doc. 99, Opp., pp. 7-8.) Defendants identified what each subpart is for and when it is issued.*fn1

(Opp., pp. 7-8.) Defendants stated that subpart D does not exist, and there were no subparts A, C, or E for the time period requested.*fn2 (Id.)

Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff made no showing in his motion to compel that subparts D and E do or should exist for the report he is seeking, and Defendants provided a credible explanation why subparts D and E were not included with the produced reports. Absent evidence to the contrary, which has not been provided, Plaintiff is required to accept Defendants' response that all documents were produced.

POD 14: Plaintiff seeks memoranda, reports, minute orders, and other documents relating to any communications between Defendants Adams, Hansen, Wan, and Beeler for the purpose of reviewing the modified program instituted at CSATF, Facility C, between January 2004 and May 2005, as it pertained to out-of-cell exercise.

Defendants responded that a diligent search and inquiry was conducted, and all documents described in the request were ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.