Opinion
2:19-cv-1228 TLN KJN P
06-11-2021
JEFF HAWKINS, Plaintiff, v. M. WINKFIELD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a civil rights action. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 19, 2021, plaintiff renewed his motion to compel; defendants filed an opposition; plaintiff did not file a reply. As set forth below, plaintiff's motion is denied.
I. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
This action proceeds solely on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Winkfield, Pendleton, Decker, Troncoso and Whipple based on the alleged use of excessive force on September 28, 2018. (ECF No. 11.)
Plaintiff alleges the incident took place on August 28, 2018 (ECF No. 10 at 1-2), but his exhibits confirm it occurred on September 28, 2018 (ECF Nos. 10 at 5; 10-1 at 10, 16, 20, 27.).
II. Motion to Compel
A. Legal Standards Governing Motions to Compel
Under 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)).
Plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are disputed, (3) why he believes the response is deficient, (4) why defendants' objections are not justified, and (5) why the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. McCoy v. Ramirez, 2016 WL 3196738 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (“Plaintiff must inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the court why the information sought is relevant and why defendant's objections are not justified.”).
B. Background
Plaintiff filed three prior motions to compel. (ECF Nos. 64, 66, 72.) On February 4, 2021, plaintiff was advised that “generalized identification of the discovery requests is insufficient, ” and he must provide with his motion a copy of each discovery request and response at issue. (ECF No. 65 at 1, 2.) Specifically, plaintiff was informed that only “that part of the request for production, response or proof of service that is in issue shall be filed, '' quoting L.R. 205.3(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. (ECF No. 65 at 2 n.11) (emphasis added). On March 30, 2021, the court explained that plaintiff must identify the specific discovery request he contends was inadequately answered, and for each such request, plaintiff must explain what response or part of the response is disputed, why plaintiff believes the response is deficient, why defendants' objection is not well-taken, and why the information sought is relevant. “Plaintiff is not permitted to simply lodge one general objection to all of the discovery responses provided.” (ECF No. 75.)
On March 30, 2021, plaintiff was granted “one final opportunity to file a motion to compel in which he identifies each specific discovery request and response he challenges, and for each response he challenges, specifically addresses the five elements set forth above. McCoy, 2018 WL 5858620 at *1.” (ECF No. 75 at 3.)
C. Discussion
Once more, defendants' opposition is well-taken. Despite this court's prior orders, plaintiff's motion generally states he wants staff complaints filed by other inmates against defendants concerning mistreatment, but fails to identify which discovery requests he is challenging, which responses are disputed, why he believes the response is deficient, why defendants' objections are not justified, and why the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. Plaintiff again appends over 170 pages of discovery requests, responsive documents and a privilege log, which he appears to expect defendants and the court to review in an effort to discern which response is inadequate.
As pointed out by defendants, plaintiff references “Item 1, ” which does not correspond to the first request for production request (ECF No. 77 at 62).
Plaintiff's motion is insufficient to demonstrate that an order requiring further discovery responses is warranted. Plaintiff fails to meet his burden as the moving party. McCoy, 2016 WL 3196738. Further, plaintiff's motion claims he sought all grievances, complaints or other documents received by defendants or their agents at Mule Creek since “before or after September 28, 2018, ” the date of the incident alleged herein. (ECF No. 77 at 3.) Such request is overbroad and burdensome in that it is not limited as to time.
In their opposition, defendants identified requests for production Nos. 12 and 13 as somewhat resembling the request discussed in plaintiff's motion. (ECF No. 81 at 4-5, citing ECF No. 77 at 67.) Those requests sought any and all formal and informal written complaints alleging excessive force against any defendant since before September 28, 2018, and against any Mule Creek State Prison staff member during defendant Joe Lizarraga's employment as warden. (ECF No. 77 at 67-68.) Defendants' objections that such requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome are sustained. In addition, defendants' objections that such requests seek improper character evidence are also sustained. Plaintiff fails to explain how such records are relevant to any party's claim or defense in this action, except as inadmissible character evidence. Plaintiff contends that evidence of other incidents of abuse has been admitted as relevant to motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident. (ECF No. 77 at 4.) But, as argued by defendants, no such circumstances apply to plaintiffs allegations in this case, which are limited to his claims that defendants used excessive force on plaintiff on September 28, 2018. (ECF No. 10.)
For all of the above reasons, plaintiffs motion is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to compel (ECF No. 77) is denied.