Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Caver v. Gomez

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 20, 2014

DENELL CAVER, Plaintiff,
v.
E. GOMEZ, et al., Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO RFP 3 AND RFP 4 (Doc. 69) TWENTY-DAY DEADLINE

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

I. Background

Plaintiff Denell Caver, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 on June 20, 2011. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed on April 10, 2012, against Defendants Gomez, Stark, and Garcia for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

On August 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Garcia to produce documents responsive to requests for the production of documents ("RFP") numbers 3 and 4.[1] (Doc. 69.) Defendant Garcia filed an opposition on September 5, 2014, and Plaintiff filed a reply on September 15, 2014. (Docs. 70, 73.) The motion was submitted upon the record without oral argument. Local Rule 230( l ).

II. Discussion and Order

Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant Garcia to respond to RFP 3 and RFP 4 represents the final discovery dispute between the parties. As this is not the first motion to compel resolved by the Court in this action, the legal standards previously provided do not bear repetition. Turning to the merits, Plaintiff's motion shall be granted for the reasons which follow.

RFP 3: "Produce a copy of the post order for Facility B displaying the names and post assignment numbers for the 2 Sergeant positions, Facility B dining' Sergeant and Facility B yard' Sergeant for the third watch (2pm-10pm), for the date of December 14, 2010."

Response: "Defendant objects the request on the ground that it is compound, and irrelevant because it requests information that it not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the claims against Defendant Garcia. Plaintiff is attempting to obtain documents related to other Defendants that he did not request when discovery was open related to those Defendants. Defendant further objects on the ground that he does not have possession or control of the documents requested."

RFP 4: "Produce a copy of the post order for Facility B displaying the names and post assignment numbers for the 2 Sergeant positions, Facility B dining' Sergeant and Facility B yard' Sergeant for the third watch (2pm-10pm), for the date of December 15, 2010."

Response: "Defendant objects the request on the ground that it is compound, and irrelevant because it requests information that it not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the claims against Defendant Garcia. Plaintiff is attempting to obtain documents related to other Defendants that he did not request when discovery was open related to those Defendants. Defendant further objects on the ground that he does not have possession or control of the documents requested."

Ruling: Defendant Garcia's objections are overruled. The objection of "compound" in this instance lacks merit, and Defendant's narrow treatment of the scope of discovery is unsupportable; the post orders are relevant to Plaintiff's claims and they are discoverable. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1); Asea, Inc. v. Southern P. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) ("The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, " and "[c]allous disregard of discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned."). Moreover, Defendant Garcia's bare assertion that he lacks possession or control over the documents is unpersuasive and it does not suffice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(B), (C); Allen v. Woodford, No. CV-F-05-1104 OWW LJO, 2007 WL 309945, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007) (citing In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejecting boilerplate objections).

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel is HEREBY GRANTED, and Defendant Garcia is ordered to produce the post orders responsive to RFP 3 and RFP 4 within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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