United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL AS
MOOT (ECF NOS. 71, 74.)
S. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Hazeltine (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This
case now proceeds with Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint filed on July 6, 2015, on the following claim:
Excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
against defendants Ian Young, Benjamin Gamez, Rashaun Casper,
Julius Oldan, Porfirio Sanchez Negrete, David Avilia, Rickey
Smith, and Charles Ho (collectively
“Defendants”). (ECF No. 27.)
10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a [first] motion to compel the
production of documents. (ECF No. 71.) On August 25, 2017,
Defendants filed a response to the [first] motion to compel.
(ECF No. 73.) On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections
to Defendants' service of documents and a second motion
to compel. (ECF No. 74.) On October 31, 2017, Defendants
filed an opposition to Plaintiff's objections and second
motion to compel. (ECF No. 75.)
motions to compel are now before the court.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). “Relevant
information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” Id. 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.
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a
party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an
answer, designation, production, or inspection.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B). 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)).
is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigant;
therefore, to the extent possible, the Court endeavors to
resolve Plaintiff's motion to compel on its merits.
Hunt, 672 F.3d at 616; Surfvivor Media, Inc. v.
Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005);
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.
FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 71.)
first motion to compel seeks to compel Defendants to produce
twelve items and related work product: (1) Plaintiff's
medical records held by Defendants' employer from January
1, 2006, to the present; (2) Office of Special Investigations
report for case #13091383; (3) Unit #9 video recording of the
September 2, 2013, incident; (4) Photographs taken in
connection with the September 2, 2013, incident; (5) Coalinga
State Hospital Special Incident Report dated December 5,
2013; (6) California's Department of Public Health
Licensing Reportable Event Report dated September 5, 2013;
(7) Coalinga State Hospital's Incident Review Committee
Synopsis dated November 18, 2013; (8) SSU-9 Referral
Assessment pages 1-11 dated August 16, 2013; (9) SOC 341
#13091383 abuse complaint arising out of the September 2,
2013, incident; (10) Patient's rights complaints, SOC 341
complaints filed against any and all named defendants
spanning their entire employ at Coalinga State Hospital; (11)
Psychiatric Technician schooling records such as grades,
performances, attendance, etc.; (12) Criminal histories on
all named defendants.
asserts that he has requested these records numerous times
from Defendants --by phone, in person, and in writing -- but
all of his requests have gone unanswered.
counsel, California Deputy Attorney General (DAG) James C.
Phillips (“Phillips”), responds that this case
was reassigned to him on August 9, 2017, and the DAG who was
formerly assigned to this case left the office on August 11,
2017. (Phillips Decl., ECF No. 75 ¶3.) Phillips contends
that Plaintiff's motion to compel is based on a
previously untimely served request for production of
documents that Plaintiff failed to re-serve when the
court's scheduling order was modified on May 25, 2016.
(Id. ¶¶7, 8.) Phillips attests that the
DAG formerly assigned to this case did not file a response to
the previous untimely motion to compel. Newly appointed
defense counsel Phillips expresses willingness to provide
documents responsive to Plaintiff's present motion to
compel, with limitations, notwithstanding that none of the
documents requested are in the custody or control of any
OBJECTIONS AND SECOND MOTION TO ...