United States District Court, C.D. California
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
KENLY KIYA KATO, Magistrate Judge.
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order: Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 
This is a pro se civil rights case filed by Plaintiff Shaun Darnell Garland ("Plaintiff"). Plaintiff names a single defendant, correctional officer Charlie Hughes ("Defendant"), who is sued in his individual capacity. ECF Docket No. ("Dkt.") 31. Plaintiff alleges Defendant placed him in administrative segregation in retaliation for Plaintiff's exercise of his First Amendment rights in filing administrative complaints and initiating litigation against California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation employees and California Correctional Peace Officers Association union members. Id.
On March 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff's Discovery requests. Dkt. 46. Plaintiff seeks the following five items that Defendant has refused to produce:
(1) A copy of the document referred to as the "anonymous" note in paragraph number 1 of the affidavit of Kelvin X. Singleton, discovered by A-Facility staff at CSP-LAC on October 23, 2011;
(2) A copy of the alleged "BGF Paraphernalia" document(s) described as being discovered by defendant Hughes in his response to interrogatory No. 4 to plaintiff's interrogatories, set one;
(3) A copy of the document(s) describing the results of the "investigation" defendant Hughes ordered as described in the March 3, 2012, CDC Form 114D lockup order;
(4) A copy of the document "the alleged anonymous kite" Correctional Officer Wayne Passed to Correctional Officer Yen to put into the inmate mail box in Building 3, A Facility during the second watch in 2010 that was retrieved by the yard sergeant and secured as evidence. Said document purported that black inmates were planning to assault staff and A-Facility;
(5) A copy of the document, the April 24, 2011 "anonymous kite" found by CSP-LAC A Facility staff, alleging staff and other races subject to attack by black inmates.
Id. (collectively referred to as "Requests for Documents 1-5").
In his response to Plaintiff's Requests for Documents 1-5, Defendant asserted he lacks "possession, custody, or control." In his Motion, Plaintiff argues the documents sought are documents defendant could obtain, and ...