The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. 39)
Order Denying Motion to Compel and for Sanctions
Plaintiff Francis W. Davis, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 29, 2009. This action is proceeding against Defendant Villagrana for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff held an inmate labor position at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility peanut butter and jelly plant, and his claim arises out of the November 2008 reduction in his pay, which he alleges was in retaliation against him for refusing to withdraw his inmate appeal against Officer Wadja.
On December 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to select discovery requests and for sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Defendant filed an opposition on January 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a reply on February 11, 2013, and the motion has been submitted upon the record. Local Rule 230(l).
A. Request for Production of Documents
A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party's possession, custody or control: any designated documents or tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) (quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to production of document requests (PODs) 1, 2, and 5.*fn1 POD 1: "Any and all CDC-128-B General Chronos in Prison Industry Authority's files which concern Plaintiff's on the job training, certificates received, and disciplinary actions taken against him for refusal to work."
Response: Despite objecting to the request as overly broad, burdensome, compound, and vague, Defendant produced copies of all CDCR-128-B forms in Plaintiff's Prison Industry personnel file for his position at the peanut butter and jelly plant.*fn2
Ruling: Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to produce the CDCR-128-B general chrono "supposedly prepared" against Plaintiff for failing to report to work, states that he wants a copy of the document, and asserts that defense counsel refuses to admit that no such document was ever filed. (Doc. 39, Motion, 1:27.)
In opposition to Plaintiff's motion, Defendant states that he provided all responsive documents.
Absent evidence to the contrary, which has not been presented, Plaintiff is required to accept Defendant's response that he produced all documents responsive to Plaintiff's request, narrowed to those documents relevant to Plaintiff's claim.
Plaintiff's position that the CDCR-128-B general chrono he seeks does not exist cannot be reconciled with his position that production of the document should be compelled. (Doc. 1, Comp., p. 8; Doc. 39, Motion, 1:26-2:7.) If Plaintiff wanted an admission that no such document was ever issued, his recourse was to serve a request for admission on Defendant and the Court notes that he did so.*fn3 Plaintiff may not seek to compel from defense counsel a voluntary "admission" that no such document exists.
POD 2: "A copy of [']Inmate Work Supervisor's Time Log['] for the months of March and April 2009."
Response: Despite objecting to the request as vague, ambiguous, and calling for information which is not relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Defendant produced the CDCR 1697 (Inmate Work Supervisor's Time Log) forms showing ...