Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Bryant v. Romero

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 22, 2016

KEVIN D. BRYANT, Plaintiff
v.
R. ROMERO, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL [ECF NO. 78] ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT WADDLE TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

          Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Kevin D. Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 26, 2012. On November 1, 2013, the Court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff named as Defendants: Correctional Lieutenant Constance Waddle and Correctional Officer E. Castellanos. Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him. On March 25, 2015, Defendants Castellanos and Waddle filed an answer.

         On September 8, 2015, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order wherein the deadline for providing initial disclosures was set for October 19, 2015, the deadline to amend pleadings was set for January 4, 2016, the deadline for conducting discovery was set for February 1, 2016, and the deadline for filing dispositive motions was set for April 1, 2016.

         On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Waddle to answer Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (“ROG”), Set No. 1, Request for Admissions (“RFA”), Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), and Interrogatories, Set No. 2.

         DISCUSSION

         Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. (quotation marks omitted). Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012). This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party’s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1.

         However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigator. Therefore, to the extent possible, the Court endeavors to resolve the motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

         I. Interrogatories, Set No. 1

         Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to his interrogatories as follows.

         ROG 2: “State in detail the exact number of staff misconduct complaints that were filed against you by any inmates between January 1, 2008 and the present date of your response.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “staff misconduct complaints, ” “against you, ” and “response, ” are vague and ambiguous. Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff is seeking administrative appeals filed against the Defendant, the Interrogatory is harassing and unduly burdensome. Administrative appeals are not maintained according to the staff complained of in the appeal and there are no staff files for administrative grievances. Rather, administrative appeals are logged and maintained according to the inmate who submitted them. A copy of the appeals is kept in the prison’s Appeals Office, and another copy is placed in the inmate’s central file. Thus, to comply with this request, Defendant would be required to review each inmate’s prison central file to determine if there are responsive documents. To the extent that the request seeks documents contained in Defendant’s personnel file, it violates the official information privilege. Finally, the request seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, it is overbroad as to scope and time, and it calls for speculation.
Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is unaware of the exact number of inmate appeals filed against her, and would be speculating as to a response. Defendant has denied any and all allegations of misconduct, including the allegations of misconduct alleged by Plaintiff that are the basis of this complaint.

         Plaintiff’s Response:

None of the terms used in this interrogatory are vague or ambiguous to this Defendant as she has admitted in her responses to my requests for admissions No. 23-25 that she has conducted staff misconduct investigations into staff misconduct complaints filed by inmates at KVSP, that she has substantial training and experience in conducting these investigations and has trained other custody staff in the policies and procedures thereto. Prior staff misconduct complaints filed against Waddle is relevant to the subject matter and to credibility and other issues and are clearly discoverable in § 1983 actions.
The CDCR operations manual (DOM) and the KVSP Operational Procedure (OP) regarding the “Staff Misconduct Complaint and Investigation Procedures, which are based on California State Law, Penal Code §832.5 clearly set forth the extensive and elaborate record keeping and retention procedures for “all” staff misconduct complaints filed by inmates or civilians, whether made on 602 appeals, confidential “notes” or “kites, ” or even made verbally by any inmates to any custody official or person considered a peace officer. Penal Code §832.5(b) requires the Department of Corrections to retain “citizen complaints, ” (which includes staff misconduct complaints) and related reports or findings for “at least five years.” Each warden and Regional Parole Administrator (RPA) shall maintain a filing system containing copies of each citizens complaint filed by citizens other than inmates/parolees and the written responses thereto as well as inmate/parolees appeals that allege peace officer misconduct. See DOM §54100.25 through 54100.27, and the KVSP OP section regarding staff misconduct complaints and investigation procedures, from section IV, “approval” and “review” through section VIII, “allegations of excessive and/or unnecessary force, ” and also see title 15 of the CCR §3382 for the law on the existence of these records and reports.
Waddles response hereto is evasive and without merit and this interrogatory aims to discover the number of “staff misconduct complaints that have been filed against her since she began working at KVSP which is proper under FRCP 26(b)(1). Waddles evasive and meritless response must be supplemented immediately and substantively. Plaintiff incorporates his Preliminary Statement and General Argument by reference as through fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

         Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Bryant’s arguments regarding Interrogatory No. 2 are unavailing. In addition to being overly broad in time and scope, Bryant’s interrogatory about the “exact” number of staff complaints filed against Defendant Waddle is unduly burdensome and nearly impossible for Defendant Waddle to answer. Although Bryant argues that there is a record keeping system to keep appeals for five years, as explained in Defendant Waddle’s discovery response, administrative appeals and staff complaints are maintained by the inmate who filed the grievance and not by the staff member. This is further supported by the declaration of Litigation Coordinator Brian Hancock. (See Decl. Hancock, Doc. # 77-1.) Further, Defendant Waddle explained in her discovery response that she is not informed about every complaint filed against her. Therefore, Defendant Waddle cannot respond to this request without looking at the central file of every inmate who was at Kern Valley State Prison from 2008 to present.
The undue burden of this request far outweighs the probative value of this request, as Bryant seeks inadmissible character evidence. Character evidence is normally not admissible in a civil rights case. Gates v. Rivera, 993 F.2d 697, 700 (9th Cir. 1993); Cohn v. Papke, 655 F.2d 191, 193 (9th Cir. 1981). Rule 404 generally prohibits the admission of evidence of a person's character for the purpose of proving that the individual acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). (“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.”); Heath v. Cast, 813 F.2d 254, 259 (9th Cir. 1987.) Evidence regarding prison’s staff’s past conduct with respect to other inmates is inadmissible, and Bryant will not be able to argue that Defendant Waddle acted in conformity therewith. Bryant thus cannot demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from the denial in this case. Thus, there is no basis to grant Bryant’s Motion to Compel a further response.

         Ruling: Granted in part. Defendant’s objection that the terms “staff misconduct complaint, ” “against you, ” and “response” are vague and ambiguous is overruled. In addition, Defendant’s argument that the interrogatory would be nearly impossible to answer because of the way files are kept at Kern Valley State Prison is overruled. Plaintiff is correct that Defendant may not avoid discovery by keeping records in a certain manner, and then claim that searching those records would be an undue burden because of the manner of storage chosen. The Court is aware of many prisoner cases in which such information has been provided.

         Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s request concerning all staff misconduct complaints goes beyond the scope of discovery. In addition, his request for complaints from the period of January 1, 2008, goes back over eight years. The relevant date in this case is June 8, 2010, which is the date of the alleged assault by Officers Gallagher and Romero. It was this incident that Plaintiff claims provided the motivation for Waddle to begin her alleged pattern of retaliation against him. Plaintiff is entitled to evidence which would disclose a pattern of retaliation. Therefore, Defendant Waddle’s objection to this request as inadmissible character evidence is overruled, and Defendant Waddle is ordered to provide a further response to the interrogatory stating the number of staff misconduct complaints filed against her from June 8, 2010, to the present, wherein inmates complained of retaliation by Waddle.

         ROG 3: “State in detail the exact number of staff misconduct complaints filed against you by any inmates between January 1, 2008 and the date of your response for which you were investigated by the Institution Services Unit (ISU) and CDCR’s Office of Internal Affairs (OIA).”

         Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “staff misconduct complaint, ” “response, ” “Institutional Services Unit, ” and “Office of Internal Affairs” are vague and ambiguous. This request is vague as to the term “staff misconduct complaints.” Assuming that the term refers to a staff complaint defined by title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, section 3084.9, subdivision (1)(i), Defendant also objects to this request as overly broad and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Whether other inmates have filed a staff complaint alleging that Defendant engaged in misconduct is not relevant evidence that Defendant may have engaged in retaliatory conduct. This request is unintelligible. This request calls for speculation as investigations by ISU and OIA are confidential and not necessarily disclosed to officers who may be subject of an investigation. This request is compound and vague and ambiguous as what response Plaintiff is referring to. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope, and is therefore unduly burdensome as this would require examination of every inmate file over an unspecified period of time because inmate appeals are not categorized by staff member nor placed in a staff member’s personnel files. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. Finally, this violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.
Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is unaware of the exact number of staff complaints filed against her, and would be speculating as to a response. Defendant has denied any and all allegations of misconduct, including the allegation of misconduct alleged by Plaintiff that are the basis of this complaint.

         Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome or compound, as it asks only one question and covers a specific time period, and Defendant is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and procedures. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his contentions re interrogatory No. 2 and his ‘Preliminary Statement’ and General Argument above as though fully set forth right here. See p. 22-25. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

         Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As Defendant Waddle explained above in response to Interrogatory No. 2, staff complaints are not kept by staff member but rather than inmate. Therefore, Bryant’s request, which is overly broad in time and scope, would be unduly burdensome for Defendant Waddle to answer. Further, as explained by Defendant Castellanos in response to the same interrogatory (Castellanos Opp. to MTC at 6), staff members do not have access to ISU or OIA records. Therefore Defendant Waddle cannot personally verify whether or not any inmate complaints have been investigated or provide any pertinent information unless she was informed of any such investigation. Finally, Defendant Waddle incorporates by reference her response from Interrogatory No. 2 indicating that Bryant is seeking inadmissible character evidence, as he is seeking information that has nothing to do with his claim but instead appears to simply be a way of showing alleged prior bad acts.

         Ruling: Granted in part for the same reasons stated in ROG 2 above. Defendant states such records are confidential and not necessarily disclosed to the officers who are subject of an investigation. To the extent she possesses or has access to such records, Defendant Waddle is ordered to provide a further response to the interrogatory stating the number of staff misconduct complaints filed against her from June 8, 2010, to the present, for which she was investigated by the Institution Services Unit (ISU) and Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), wherein inmates had complained of retaliation by Waddle.

         ROG 4: “Identify all inmates by full name and CDCR number who have filed 602 appeals and staff misconduct complaints against you between January 1, 2008 and the date of your response alleging you had them assaulted by staff or other inmates or [were] in any way involved in their being assaulted.”

Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “staff misconduct complaints, ” “against you, ” and “response, ” are vague and ambiguous. Assuming that the term refers to a staff complaint defined by title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, section 3084.9, subdivision (1)(i), Defendant also objects to this request as overly broad and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Whether other inmates have filed a staff complaint alleging that Defendant engaged in misconduct is not relevant evidence that Defendant may have engaged in retaliatory conduct. This request is unintelligible. This request calls for speculation as investigations by ISU and OIA are confidential and not necessarily disclosed to officers who may be subject of an investigation. This request is compound. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope, and is therefore unduly burdensome as this would require examination of every inmate file over an unspecified period of time because inmate appeals are not categorized by staff member nor placed in a staff member’s personnel files. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. This request potentially violates the privacy rights of third parties. Finally, this violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.
Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant believes that Plaintiff Bryant (D56620) and Inmate Cleave McCloud (J55573) may have filed appeals, however she is still researching this issue. Defendant is unaware of any other inmate appeals or staff complaints alleging that she had inmates assaulted.

         Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome or compound, as it asks only one question and covers a specific time period, and Defendant is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and procedures. See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Interrogatory No. 2” and his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 28-29 & 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

         Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As Defendant Waddle explained above in response to Interrogatory No. 2, staff complaints are not kept by staff member but rather by inmate. Therefore, Bryant’s request, which is overly broad in time and scope, would be unduly burdensome for Defendant Waddle to answer. Defendant Waddle has provided Bryant with the names of inmates she believes filed appeals against her for this topic (although Defendant Waddles does not believe that Bryant exhausted his administrative remedies against her and is seeking to file a Motion for Summary Judgment on those grounds). Bryant’s disagreement regarding the extent of Defendant Waddle’s knowledge or memory is not a basis to object to her response.
Finally, Defendant Waddle incorporates by reference her response from Interrogatory No. 2 indicating that Bryant is seeking inadmissible character evidence, as he is seeking information that has nothing to do with his claim but instead appears to simply be a way of showing alleged prior bad acts.

         Ruling: Denied. Defendant Waddle states she has provided Plaintiff with the names of inmates she believed filed appeals against her for this topic.

         ROG 5: “Identify all ISU and OIA staff by name and employee I.D. number who have questioned or interviewed you in an investigation in regard to allegations of staff misconduct made against you between January 1, 2008 and the date of your response by any inmates.”

         Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “staff misconduct, ” “investigation, ” and “responses.” This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request for “the date of your response by any inmates” is unintelligible. This request calls for speculation. This request is compound. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. Finally, this violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.
Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant does not recall this information and is not currently in possession of information that could refresh her memory.

         Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome or compound, as it asks only one question and covers a specific time period, and Defendant is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and procedures. See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Interrogatory No. 2” and his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 28-29 & 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

         Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As Defendant Waddle explained in her discovery response, she does not know this information and she does not have documents to refresh her memory. While Defendant Waddle has sought documents pertaining to Bryant’s case, as they are not currently in her possession, she has not yet received any such documents from OIA or ISU that pertain to Bryant that could refresh her memory.
Further, any purported investigation that does not have to do with Bryant is irrelevant to this case and is impermissible character evidence. The confidentiality of such documents protected by the official information privilege and peace officer privilege would heavily outweigh any probative value.

         Ruling: Denied. Defendant has provided a sufficient response stating she does not know this information or have any documents to refresh her memory.

         ROG 6: “Describe in detail each and every act while at work at KVSP for which you were investigated, and received disciplinary action against you by CDCR between January 1, 2008 and the date of your response.”

         Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “investigated” and “disciplinary action, ” are vague and ambiguous. This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is unintelligible. This request calls for speculation. This request is compound, and is vague and ambiguous as to what response Plaintiff is referring to. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. This request potentially violates the privacy rights of third parties. Finally, this violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.
Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant objects to the production of such information as privileged official information.

         Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome or compound, as it asks only one question and covers a specific time period, Defendants responsive is evasive, non-responsive and is made in bad faith in her attempt to cover-up that she has been investigated, found guilty and disciplined for attempting to cover-up illegal conduct committed by her staff and was going to allow an inmate get convicted of a crime she knew he did not commit and possibly receive a life sentence under the three strikes law. See Exhibit “S” at p. 336. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re interrogatory No. 2, ” and his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at P. 28-29 & 22025 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

         Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Defendant Waddle properly objected to this request on the grounds that it was overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Whether the hiring authority investigated and subsequently disciplined Defendant Waddle for allegedly failing to competently fulfill her duties as a correctional officer for conduct unrelated to the allegations in Bryant’s Amended Complaint is not relevant to evidence that Defendant Waddle may have engaged in retaliatory conduct against Bryant.
Moreover, providing inmates with information regarding confidential disciplinary history would threaten both governmental and privacy interests by: 1) having a negative impact on departmental disciplinary procedures; 2) having a chilling effect on departmental officers and employees to provide personal information about themselves and their families; 3) having a chilling effect on employees’ willingness to share potentially important information regarding job performance, health and safety concerns, and security concerns; 4) having a negative impact on internal investigations and assessments of officers and employees; 5) having a negative impact of taking of corrective actions, and 6) being an invasion of the employees’ privacy and of their families’ privacy and possibly others. This is supported by the declaration of Litigation Coordinator Brian Hancock. (See Decl. Hancock, Doc. # 77-1.)
Further, Bryant is a convicted felon litigating this matter in pro per. Even with a protective order, there is nothing to stop him from disseminating this information to other inmates and to persons outside the prison. This is improperly harassing and violates the privacy rights of defendants.
Finally, Defendant Waddle incorporates by reference her response from Interrogatory No. 2 indicating that Bryant is seeking inadmissible character evidence.

         Ruling: Granted in part for the same reasons stated in ROG 2 above. Defendant is ordered to describe each act of retaliation against an inmate while at work at KVSP for which she were investigated, and received disciplinary action against her by CDCR between June 8, 2010, to the present.

         ROG 7: “Describe in detail the disciplinary actions against you that you received for each and every act you describe in your response to Interrogatory No. 6 above.”

         Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrase “disciplinary action, ” is vague and ambiguous. This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. Finally, this violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.
Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: No discipline has been sustained against Defendant by CDCR.

         Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory and the term disciplinary action is not at all vague or ambiguous to Waddle, and in her response she has knowingly lied under oath. And this Court should impose sanctions under its inherent power to control its docket for this bad faith by Defendant Waddle and also her counsel if they know it was false and instructed her to lie under oath because they did not know I had documentary proof she was disciplined or that I would ever be able to obtain any with their deliberate obstruction of discovery relevant to this case’s subject matter. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Interrogatory No. 2 & 6, ” and his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 28, 34 & 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

         Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Notwithstanding the objections to this interrogatory, Defendant Waddle answered Bryant’s question and verified her response. Although Bryant claims that Defendant Waddle is not responding in good faith and that he has “documentary proof” that she is lying, he fails to provide any specific explanation or evidentiary support to his allegation that Defendant Waddle is not being truthful.
Further, simply because Plaintiff believes Defendant Waddle is not being honest is not grounds for a motion to compel.

         Ruling: Denied. Defendant has answered the interrogatory.

         ROG 8: “State all the dates on which you were interviewed and questioned in any investigations regarding all the allegations Plaintiff made against you in all the 602 appeals, staff misconduct complaints, and ISU or OIA recorded interviews he filed and made against you, including the name(s) and employee I.D. numbers of each interviewer or investigator.”

         Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “questioned, ” investigations, ” “interviewer, ” and “investigator” are vague and ambiguous. This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request calls for speculation. This request is compound. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. Finally, this violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.
Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant does not recall this information and is not currently in possession of any documents that could refresh her recollection regarding this information.

         Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, compound or overly broad, and Defendant Waddle is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and procedures. See Exhibit X at p. 362- 364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Interrogatory No. 2, ” and his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 28 & 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

         Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As Defendant Waddle explained in her discovery response, she does not know this information and she does not have documents to refresh her memory. While Defendant Waddle has sought documents pertaining to Bryant’s case, as they are not currently in her possession, she has not yet received any such documents from OIA or ISU that pertain to Bryant that could refresh her memory.
Further, Defendant Waddle does not believe that Bryant ever filed a 602 regarding his claims against her and/or exhausted his administrative remedies and therefore there would be no interview. Defendant Waddle intends to file a Motion for Summary Judgment on the exhaustion issue.

         Ruling: Denied. Defendant has sufficiently answered the interrogatory.

         ROG 9: “Describe in detail all the questions that were asked and the answers you gave in response thereto in each and every interview you describe in response to Interrogatory No. 8 above including the name(s) of the interviewer(s) / investigators who asked each questions and their employee I.D. Number.”

         Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “questions, ” “answers” “interview, ” “interviewer, ” and “investigator” are vague and ambiguous. This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request calls for speculation. This request is compound. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. Finally, this violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.
Defendant does not recall this information and is not currently in possession of any documents capable of refreshing her recollection of this information.

         Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not in any vague or ambiguous to this Defendant and is highly relevant to the subject matter of this case. Defendant is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and procedure and knows all these terms. See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s response to Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “contentions re Interrogatory No. 2, ” and his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 28 & 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

         Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As Defendant Waddle explained in her discovery response, she does not know this information and she does not have documents to refresh her memory. While Defendant Waddle has sought documents pertaining to Bryant’s case, as they are not currently in her possession, she has not yet received any such documents from OIA or ISU that pertain to Bryant that could refresh her memory.
Further, Defendant Waddle does not believe that Bryant ever filed a 602 regarding his claims against her and/or exhausted his administrative remedies and therefore there would be no interview. Defendant Waddle intends to file a Motion for Summary Judgment on the exhaustion issue.

         Ruling: Denied. Defendant has sufficiently answered the interrogatory.

         ROG 10: “Describe in detail the location of all the records and recorded interviews regarding all the investigations that were conducted by ISU and OIA staff regarding all the allegations Plaintiff made against you in his 602 appeals, staff misconduct complaints and interviews recorded by ISU and OIA. Please state the full name, title, and employee I.D. number of the custodian(s) of all those records.”

         Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “location, ” “records” “recorded interviews, ” and “staff misconduct, ” are vague and ambiguous. This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request calls for speculation. This request is compound. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. Finally, this violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.
Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is not currently in possession of this information. Defendant is not in possession, control, or custody of any of the requested documents/information and would be guessing as to their whereabouts.

         Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not in any way vague or ambiguous to this Defendant as to those terms, and it is highly relevant to the subject matter of this case. Defendant Waddle is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and procedure and knows all these terms. See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Interrogatory No. 2, ” and his “Preliminary Statement and general Argument” above at p. 28 & 22- 25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

         Defendant’s Argument in Response:

First, Defendant has reason to believe that Bryant did not file a 602 Appeal against Defendant Waddle regarding this incident, and she intends to move for summary judgment on the grounds that Bryant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Therefore, there would be no such investigations based on a 602 Appeal.
Further, as explained above, Defendant Waddle does not have access to ISU or OIA records. Therefore, she cannot personally verify whether or not any Bryant’s complaints have been investigated or where such recordings are located. This would call for speculation.
Further, Bryant has already subpoenaed these records from CDCR and has filed a separate motion regarding this subpoena.

         Ruling: Denied. Defendant has sufficiently answered the interrogatory stating she does not have such records or access to them.

         ROG 11: “Describe in detail the location of all the records and recorded interviews regarding all the investigations that were conducted by ISU, OIA, or any CDCR official regarding all 602 appeals and staff misconduct complaints filed by all KVSP inmates in which they made allegations that you were in any way involved in or responsible for, their being assaulted by staff or other inmates between January 1, 2008 and the date of your response. Please state the full name, title and employee I.D. number of the custodian of all those records.”

         Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “location, ” “records” “recorded interviews, ” and “staff misconduct, ” are vague and ambiguous. This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request calls for speculation. This request is compound. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. Finally, this violates defendant’s privacy rights and violates the official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.
Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is not currently in possession of this information. Defendant is not in possession, control, or custody of any of the requested documents/information and would be guessing as to their whereabouts.

         Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, compound or overly broad as to time period or scope, and it is highly relevant to the subject matter of this case. Defendant Waddle is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and procedure and knows all these terms. See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Interrogatory No. 2, ” and his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at P. 28 & 22- 25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

         Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As explained above, Defendant Waddle does not have access to ISU or OIA records. Therefore, she cannot personally verify whether or not any inmate’s complaints have been investigated or where such recordings are located. This would call for speculation. (See Decl. Hancock, Doc. # 77-1.) Further, Bryant has already subpoenaed these records from CDCR and has filed a separate motion regarding this subpoena.

         Ruling: Denied. Defendant has sufficiently answered the interrogatory stating she does not have such records or access to them.

         ROG 12: “Identify by full name and employee number all of the KVSP sergeants and correctional officers whom you supervise who have been investigated by ISU, OIA or any prison official for allegations of staff misconduct between January 1, 2008 and the date of your response.”

         Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “employee number, ” “supervise” “investigated, ” and “staff misconduct, ” are vague and ambiguous. This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request calls for speculation. This request is compound and vague and ambiguous as what response Plaintiff is referring to. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. This request violates the privacy rights of third parties. Finally, this violates the official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.
Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is not aware of such information as ISU and OIA investigations are confidential.

         Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory is not vague, ambiguous, compound or overly broad as to time period or scope, and it is highly relevant to the subject matter of this case. Defendant Waddle is a training officer for CDCR on staff misconduct investigation policies and procedure and knows all these terms. See Exhibit X at p. 362-364, Waddle’s responses to Admissions No. 23-25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Interrogatory No. 2, ” and his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 28 & 22- 25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

         Defendant’s Argument in Response:

Bryant’s discovery request is impermissibly overbroad in time and scope, as it seeks information that has potentially nothing to do with this case. Although Bryant claims that this information about whether other officers were investigated for alleged misconduct is relevant, he provides no explanation of relevancy to this case and specifically his retaliation claim against Defendant Waddle. For example, an officer who at one point in time was supervised by Defendant Waddle in the past eight years could have been investigated for something that occurred when Defendant Waddle was not supervising him/her or for something that had nothing to do with Defendant Waddle.
Further, the request seeks confidential information which Defendant Waddle does not have access to as she does not have access to OIA and ISU investigations, particularly for other staff members. Simply because Defendant Waddle may supervise employees does not mean that she has knowledge of all investigations and/or discipline against them, and this violates third party rights as well as the peace officer privilege. Particularly because Bryant cannot show that this information is relevant to his claims, the Court should protect the privacy interests of third parties and deny Bryant’s motion to compel this response.

         Ruling: Denied. The interrogatory seeks information which is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation by Waddle.

         ROG 13: “Identify by full name and employee I.D. number all KVSP sergeants and correctional officers whom you supervised who have received disciplinary action against them as a result of staff misconduct between January 1, 2008 and the date of your response.”

         Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The terms and phrases “employee I.D. number, ” “supervise” “disciplined, ” and “staff misconduct, ” are vague and ambiguous. This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Whether other inmates have filed a staff complaint alleging that Defendant engaged in misconduct is not relevant evidence that Defendant may have engaged in retaliatory conduct. This request calls for speculation as investigations by ISU and OIA are confidential and not necessarily disclosed to officers who may be subject of an investigation or to their supervisors. This request is compound and vague and ambiguous as what response Plaintiff is referring to. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. This request violates the privacy rights of third parties. Finally, this violates the official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.
Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is not aware of such information as ISU and OIA investigations are confidential, as well as any potential discipline.

         Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory and the terms and phrases therein are not at all vague or ambiguous to Waddle, and, in her response she has knowingly and deliberately lied under oath. And this Court should impose sanctions under its inherent power to control its docket for this bad faith by Defendant Waddle and also her counsel if they know it was false and instructed her to lie under oath, because they did not know I had documentary proof she and her sergeant, Sgt. Sica were investigated, found guilty and disciplined for their attempt to cover-up deliberate illegal conduct by themselves and the staff they supervised, nor did they ever think I would be able to obtain any with their deliberate obstruction of discovery. This is all relevant to the subject matter of this case. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contention re Interrogatory No. 2, and 6-7, ” and his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 28, 34-36 & 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

         Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As noted above, Bryant’s discovery request is impermissibly overbroad in time and scope, as it seeks information that has potentially nothing to do with this case. Although Bryant claims that this information about whether other officers were disciplined is relevant, he provides no explanation how relevancy to this case and specifically his retaliation claim against Defendant Waddle. For example, an officer who at one point in time was supervised by Defendant Waddle in the past eight years could have been disciplined for something that occurred when Defendant Waddle was not supervising him/her or for something that had nothing to do with Defendant Waddle.
Further, the request seeks confidential information which Defendant Waddle does not have access to as she does not have access to OIA and ISU investigations, and would therefore not know if an officer was disciplined. Simply because Defendant Waddle may supervise employees does not mean that she has knowledge of all investigations and/or discipline against them, and this violates third party rights. Particularly because Bryant cannot show that this information is relevant to his claims, the Court should protect the privacy interests of third parties and deny Bryant’s motion to compel this response.
Finally, while Bryant believes that he has evidence that Defendant Waddle and another Sergeant were disciplined for allegedly covering up the wrong-doing of other officers, Defendant Waddle has already indicated that no discipline has been sustained against her and Bryant has not provided evidence to refute this.

         Ruling: Denied. The interrogatory seeks information which is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation by Waddle.

         ROG 14: “Describe in detail each and every set of staff misconduct those sergeants and correctional officers you name in your response to Interrogatory No. 13 above were accused in the allegations made against them.”

         Defendant’s Response:

Objection. The term and phrase “staff misconduct, ” is vague and ambiguous. This request seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request calls for speculation as investigations by ISU and OIA are confidential and not necessarily disclosed to officers who may be subject of an investigation or to their supervisors. This request is overly broad as to time period and scope. This request assumes facts that are not in evidence. This request violates the privacy rights of third parties. Finally, this violates the official information privilege established by the analogous federal case law.
Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is not aware of such information as ISU and OIA investigations are confidential.

         Plaintiff’s Argument:

This interrogatory and the terms and phrases therein are not at all vague or ambiguous to Waddle, and, in her response she has knowingly and deliberately lied under oath. And this Court should impose sanctions under its inherent power to control its docket for this bad faith by Defendant Waddle and also her counsel if they know it was false and instructed her to lie under oath, because they did not know I had documentary proof she and her sergeant, Sgt. Sica were investigated, found guilty and disciplined for their attempt to cover-up deliberately illegal conduct by themselves and the staff they supervised, nor did they ever think I would be able to obtain any with their deliberate obstruction of discovery. This is all relevant to the subject matter of this case. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his “Contentions re Interrogatory No. 2, and 6-7, ” and his “Preliminary Statement and General Argument” above at p. 28, 34-35 & 22-25 as though fully set forth right here. A substantive supplemental response is necessary.

         Defendant’s Argument in Response:

As noted above, Bryant’s discovery request is impermissibly overbroad in time and scope, as it seeks information that has potentially nothing to do with this case. Although Bryant claims that this information about whether other officers were disciplined is relevant, he provides no explanation how relevancy to this case and specifically his retaliation claim against Defendant Waddle. For example, an officer who at one point in time was supervised by Defendant Waddle in the past eight years could have been disciplined for something that occurred when Defendant Waddle was not supervising him/her or for something that had nothing to do with Defendant Waddle.
Further, the request seeks confidential information which Defendant Waddle does not have access to as she does not have access to OIA and ISU investigations, and would therefore not know if an officer was disciplined. Simply because Defendant Waddle may supervise employees does not mean that she has knowledge of all investigations and/or discipline against them, and this violates third party rights. Particularly because Bryant cannot show that this information is relevant to his claims, the Court should protect ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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