The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL.
On November 10, 2009, Donald Dowell ("Plaintiff"), a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis ("IFP") filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). On March 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel responses to his requests for production of documents and interrogatories. (Doc. No. 37). On March 11, 2011, Defendants filed a Notice regarding Plaintiff's Motion. (Doc. No. 38). In their Notice, Defendants state that they have had difficulty meeting and conferring with Plaintiff regarding their discovery dispute, that they were not "provided with a full set of Motion documents" and that they "intend to file their Opposition" by March 28, 2011. Id. On May 18, 2011, this Court issued an Order requiring Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. (Doc. No. 48). Defendants filed their response on June 1, 2011. (Doc. No. 54). On June 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 58). In his second Motion, Plaintiff brings additional challenges to Defendants' responses to his requests for Production of Documents. Id.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery, authorizing parties to obtain discovery regarding "any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, "[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action." Id. Relevant information for discovery purposes includes any information "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," and need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id. There is no requirement that the information sought directly relate to a particular issue in the case. Rather, relevance encompasses any matter that "bears on" or could reasonably lead to matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be presented in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 354 (1978). District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, district courts have broad discretion to limit discovery where the discovery sought is "unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Limits also should be imposed where the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefits. Id.
"An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired under Rule 26(b)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate objection(s) with specificity or by "answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under oath." Id. at 33(b). The responding party has the option in certain circumstances to answer an interrogatory by specifying responsive records and making those records available to the interrogating party. Id. at 33(d).
Similarly, a party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). "For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons." Id. at 34(b). The responding party is responsible for all items in "the responding party's possession, custody, or control." Id. at 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is not required. Rather, "[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the document. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D.Cal.1995).
In his first Motion to Compel, Plaintiff challenges Defendants' responses to his requests for production of documents and responses to the interrogatories sent to Defendants Griffin, Iversen, Zdunich, Botkin, and Johnson. (Doc. No. 37, Exs. 1-5). Defendants do not address these requests separately. Rather, Defendants contend that Plaintiff's requests are too broad or seek irrelevant material. (Doc. No. 54). In his Second Motion, Plaintiff challenges Defendants' responses to more of his requests for production of documents. (Doc. No. 58). Defendants did not file a response to Plaintiff's Second Motion.
Despite the legal requirement to state objections with specificity, the Defendants instead presented a "preliminary statement" and a list of "general objections" which they incorporated by reference wholesale into each of their responses. (Doc. No. 54). However, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) requires that all objections to interrogatory requests must be made with specificity. Defendants are cautioned that, to the extent that the Court requires additional and supplemental responses, as provided below, the Defendants must state any objections with specificity or such objections will be deemed waived.
1. Requests for Production of Documents
In his First Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 37) and Second Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 54), Plaintiff challenges many of Defendants' responses to his requests for production of documents. Defendants do not address each request separately. Nevertheless, the Court will address the merits of each request challenged by Plaintiff.
Request for Production #8: Plaintiff requested transcripts from his Superior Court case, stating that he has an "undue hardship" and that "no funding is available." (Doc. No. 37). Even if Defendants have these documents in their possession, they do not have a responsibility to copy them and send them to Plaintiff at their own expense. No response is required.
Request for Production #11: Plaintiff requests documents "concerning named defendants' attempt to initiate a parole hold or a 4th waiver search of a parolee, including documents of officer's investigations of suspected parole violations." Plaintiff does not explain what answer, if any, was provided by Defendants and how this answer was deficient. Likewise, Defendants do not appear to have provided the Court with their response to this question, despite a Court order compelling them to do so. (Doc. No. 48). However, because the request on its face appears to seek documents unrelated to the instant lawsuit, Defendants are not required to respond further.
Request for Production #13: Plaintiff requests "documents concerning training policies or procedures of United States Constitutional searches." (Doc. No. 37). Plaintiff contends that Defendants' response to this question was "evasive." Id. Defendants do not address this question in their Response. Plaintiff's request is relevant, but overbroad. Defendants are ordered to produce, if they have not already, and to the extent that non-privileged documents exist, documents containing the policies or procedures governing the conduct of searches to comply with Constitutional requirements, in effect during the relevant time period.
Requests for Production #21-25: Plaintiff requests the names of various officers, police procedures, and "all information" pertaining to certain incidents. (Doc. No. 58). Plaintiff lists various badge numbers and incident report numbers in connection with these requests. (Doc. No. 58). Defendants object these requests on the grounds that they are "vague, overbroad, ambiguous, compound and unintelligible." (Doc. No. 54). Plaintiff contends that Defendants' answers are evasive and incomplete. (Doc. No. 58). The Court agrees that Plaintiff's questions are compound and unintelligible. Furthermore, as the Court interprets the requests, they appear to involve incidents and officers unrelated to the current dispute. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is denied as it pertains to these questions, and Defendants need not provide additional responses.
As an initial matter, Defendants did not answer all of Plaintiff's interrogatories. Plaintiff submitted 25 interrogatories to each Defendant, but Defendants identified many of these requests as compound, and re-numbered them. Defendants then answered what they considered to be the first 25 requests, and refused to answer the rest. While Defendants are correct that many of Plaintiff's requests were compound, some were not. For example, in Interrogatory #12 of the Griffin Interrogatories, Plaintiff asks "did you get approval to conduct your surveillance and search of Plaintiff Dowell's residence[.]" (Doc. No. 37). Defendant considered this to be two interrogatories. Additionally, Defendants identified four sub-parts in Interrogatory #5 of the Botkin Interrogatories. (Doc. No. 54). While Defendants are correct that the question is compound, it ...