United States District Court, E.D. California
GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF
No. 61.) ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE REDACTED DOCUMENT IN
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION SET THREE,
NO. 1 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL
(ECF No. 67.) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S THIRD MOTION TO
COMPEL (ECF No. 68.) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH
MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 73.)
S. Austin, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Manago (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on March
24, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with the First
Amended Complaint filed on April 18, 2016, against defendants
J. Acevedo, D.
A. Maxfield, E. Razo, M.V. Sexton, A. Valdez, and J.
Vanderpoel (collectively, “Defendants”), on
Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims. (ECF No.
November 18, 2016, December 1, 2016, December 5, 2016, and
January 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed four motions to compel
discovery. (ECF Nos. 61, 67, 68, 73.) On December 8, 2016,
December 20, 2016, and January 25, 2017, Defendants filed
oppositions to the motions. (ECF Nos. 69, 71, 72, 74.)
Plaintiff has not replied to the oppositions. Plaintiff's
motions to compel are now before the court.
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any
non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative
access to relevant information, the parties' resources,
the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope
of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
respect to requests for production, a party may propound
requests for production of documents that are within the
scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Fed.R.Civ.P.
34(a). With respect to interrogatories, a party may propound
interrogatories related to any matter that may be inquired
into under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(2). With respect to requests for
admissions, a party may propound requests for admissions of
the “truth of any matters within the scope of Rule
26(b)(1) relating to facts, the application of law to fact,
or the opinions about either; and the genuineness of any
described documents.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(1).
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a
party may move for an order compelling disclosure or
discovery.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1). The court may order
a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or
incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have
‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control
the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16.'” Hunt v. County of Orange,
672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v.
Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th
Cir. 2011)). 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, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P,
2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Ellis v.
Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS (PC), 2008 WL 860523,
at *4 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 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.
PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS
case now proceeds against defendants Acevedo, Davey,
Maxfield, Razo, Sexton, Valdez, and Vanderpoel on
Plaintiff's claims that they retaliated against him at
Corcoran State Prison (CSP) by retaining him in the SHU
because of his grievances and civil litigation. In the First
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants retained
him in the SHU beginning on December 6, 2013, based in part
on a false report that claimed that he was a validated member
of the Black Guerilla Family (BGF) gang. (ECF No. 13.)
Plaintiff also alleges that he was retaliated against and
detained in the SHU because he filed a civil action,
Manago v. Williams, and because of his willingness
to report staff criminal activity, file grievances, and
assist the Office of Internal Affairs with criminal
state a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must
satisfy five elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor
took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3)
that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action
(4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment
rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a
legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v.
Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005).
“Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file
grievances against prison officials and to be free from
retaliation for doing so.” Watison v. Carter,
668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Brodheim v.
Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009)). Also
protected by the First Amendment is the right to pursue civil
rights litigation in federal court without retaliation.
Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1104 (9th Cir.
FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 61.)
November 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel
Defendants to produce documents pursuant to Plaintiff's
request for production (RFP) set three. (ECF No. 61.)
Plaintiff served the RFP set three on Defendants on September
27, 2016, and Defendants served ...