The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Lon Carter ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a "Motion of Certification to Compel. Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(1) and (2)(A)" and a "Motion to Compel for the Production of Documents." (Doc. #49, 50.) Plaintiff's motions request the Court to compel Defendants to produce certain documents. Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion on August 16, 2010. (Doc. #69.) Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendants' opposition on August 26, 2010. (Doc. #71.)
Plaintiff requests the production of seven sets of documents. Plaintiff has not attached a copy of the document production requests he sent to Defendants and has not attached a copy of Defendants' responses to his motion. Instead, Plaintiff provides a description of the request and a description of Defendants' reply in his motion.
I. Plaintiff's Document Production Requests
"Production of Documents, No. 1" requests "documents for the avenal state prison plant of operations work order for the lowering of the hot shower temperture[sic] water during the complete months of July and August of 2006 for the facility six yards building 650 housing unit's general population." (Mot. to Compel the Production of Documents 2:8-12, ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants lowered the hot water temperatures thereby endangering Plaintiff's health by exposing him to a risk of contracting an infection. Plaintiff contends that the work order documents will contradict Defendants' contentions that the hot water temperatures were lowered because of an uncontrollable mechanical failure or because the weather was too hot. Plaintiff does not provide a description of Defendants' response to this document production request.
"Production of Documents, No. 2" requests "documents for the discrepancies found for the facility six yard's 650 housing unit building for the twelve months for the complete year of 2006." (Mot. to Compel 3:17-20, ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' claimed that no documents that were responsive to the request have been located. Plaintiff argues that "this document exist to identify working/non working unit supporters during the units cleaning inspection." (Mot. to Compel 3:23-25, ECF No. 50.)
"Production of Documents, No. 3" requests "documents for the attendance documents of each and every officer, sergeant, and lieutenant for days grounds hazard check list narrative and discrepancies inspection documents verifying their attendance for the days, weeks, months of the signed documents." (Mot. to Compel 4:1-6, ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff claims that "Defendants do not state that this document does not exist, although plaintiff has clearly made a mistake in the sentencing grammer[sic] for this request, dafendants[sic] may not take advantage of this lay man mistake." (Mot. to Compl 4:6-9, ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff claims that he "is simply requesting the document of the officers that conducted these unit inspection for the twelve month period in unit 650." (Mot. to Compl 4:9-11, ECF No. 50.)
"Production of Documents, No. 4" requests "documents for the departmental operational procedures, department of operational manual, ocr regulation, state penal statute, or state or federal law supporting, and authorizing your duty to provide plaintiff with hot water." (Mot. to Compel 4:15-18, ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants rejected Plaintiff's request by stating that they are not responsible for conducting Plaintiff's legal research and that they have no legal duty to provide hot water. Plaintiff argues that California regulations require prison officials to issue a copy of all rule changes. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants have a duty to provide for Plaintiff's safety and general well-being.
"Production of Documents, No. 5" requests "documents for the local operational procedure protocol documentation for inmate man down custody alerted situations." (Mot. to Compel 6:1-2, ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff alleges that "defendants do not claim that his documents do not exist," but provides no other description of Defendants' response to Plaintiff's request.
"Production of Documents No. 6" requests "documents for avenal state prison memorandums to staff and inmates from 2003 to December of 2006 on the subject of MRSA." (Mot. to Compel 6:8-10, ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff alleges that "Defendant's[sic] do not claim that these requested documents do not exist, defendants state that after a reasonable inquiry, the only documents that could be located is attached as attachment." (Mot. to Compel 6:14-17, ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff argues that "it is beyond belief that the defendants[sic] attachment no. 3, is/was the only generated notice circulated for inmates mrsa infection spread from 2003, until 2006 in avenal state prison's overcrowded condition of confinement." (Mot. to Compel 6:17-20, ECF No. 50.)
"Production of Document No. 7" requests "documents for any and all court ordered injunctions for the overcrowded inmate confinement at avenal state prison from 2003 up to December of 2006." (Mot. to Compel 6:22-24, ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants objected on the grounds that the request was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of ...