United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL [ECF
Alonzo Rayshawn Perkins is appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed
August 19, 2019.
action is proceeding against Defendants A. Martinez, D. C.
Stewart, A. Moreno. M. R. Thomas, and B. Arrequin for
excessive force and deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need by withholding medical attention under the
Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution., and a
separate claim of medical deliberate indifference against
Registered Nurse John Doe #4.
30, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint.
August 7, 2018, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling
October 12, 2018, the Court referred the case to
post-screening Alternate Dispute Resolution and stayed the
case for 90 days. (ECF No. 18.)
the case did not settle, the Court issued an amended
discovery and scheduling order on February 15, 2019. (ECF No.
previously stated, on August 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed the
instant motion to compel. Defendants filed a response on
August 22, 2019. Plaintiff did not file a reply and the time
to do so has expired. Local Rule 230(1).
is proceeding pro se and he is a civil detainee challenging
his conditions of confinement. As a result, the parties were
relieved of some of the requirements which would otherwise
apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and
confer in good faith prior to involving the Court in a
discovery dispute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 17,
Discovery and Scheduling Order, &4. Further, where
otherwise discoverable information would pose a threat to the
safety and security of the prison or infringe upon a
protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to
balance interests in determining whether disclosure should
occur. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co.
v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (privacy
rights or interests implicit in broad purpose and language of
Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v.
United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Montana, 408
F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing assertion of
privilege); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603,
616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a constitutionally-based
right of privacy that can be raised in discovery); see
also Garcia v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB PC, 2012
WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting
inmate's entitlement to inspect discoverable information
may be accommodated in ways which mitigate institutional
safety concerns); Robinson v. Adams, No.
1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal.
Mar. 16, 2012) (issuing protective order regarding documents
containing information which implicated the safety and
security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No.
CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7,
2012) (addressing requests for protective order and for
redaction of information asserted to risk jeopardizing safety
and security of inmates or the institution if released);
Womack v. Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011
WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (requiring
defendants to submit withheld documents for in camera review
or move for a protective order).
this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure apply. The discovery process is subject to the
overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of
discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc.
v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th
Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged 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' ...