Sylee Castle v. A. Lugo and C. Wood Case No. 2:18-cv-08827-JVS (JDE) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed June 19, 2020 Counsel Sylee Castle, California State Prison - LAC, Lancaster, CA, Pro se. Audra C. Call, Colin A. Shaff, CAAG - Office of Attorney General California Department of Justice, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Early, John D., United States Magistrate Judge (In Chambers) Order re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 84) I. INTRODUCTION *1 On June 9, 2020, Plaintiff Sylee Castle, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and for Sanctions against Defendant Lugo. Dkt. 84 (“Motion”). On June 18, 2020, Defendant Lugo filed his Opposition to the Motion (Dkt. 86, “Opposition” or “Opp.”). Per the Court's prior order (Dkt. 85), the Motion is now fully briefed. The Court finds the Motion appropriate for decision without oral argument and rules as follows. II. RELEVANT LAW “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' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. “Generally, the purpose of discovery is to remove surprise from trial preparation so the parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute.” Duran v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 258 F.R.D. 375, 378 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (citations omitted). Although relevance for discovery purposes is defined “very broadly,” Garneau v. City of Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 506-07 (1947)), it is not without boundaries. See, e.g., Rivera v. NIBCO, 364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) (“District courts need not condone the use of discovery to engage in fishing expeditions.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 679-80 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Hickman, 329 U.S. at 507); Rule 26(b)(2). District courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery purposes. Mfg. Automation & Software Sys., Inc. v. Hughes, 2017 WL 5641120, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2017) (citing Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005)). Discovery requests that seek irrelevant information are inherently unduly burdensome. Wheel Grp. Holdings, LLC v. Cub Elecparts, Inc., 2018 WL 6264980, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2018). Under Rule 34(a)(1), a party may serve on any other party requests, within the scope of Rule 26(b), to produce or permit inspection of, among other things, “(A) any designated documents or electronically stored information.” Such requests “must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected ... [and] must specify a reasonable time, place, and manner for the inspection ....” Rule 34(b)(1)(A), (B). The party responding to a request for production must, “[f]or each item or category, ... either state that inspection ... will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Rule 34(b)(2)(B). “An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Rule 34(b)(2)(C). *2 A party who withholds information under a claim of privilege must (1) “expressly make the claim,” and (2) “describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.” Rule 26(b)(5)(A). In the Ninth Circuit, “boilerplate objections or blanket refusals inserted into a response to a Rule 34 request for production of documents are insufficient to assert a privilege.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). A party responding to discovery should use common sense and attribute ordinary definitions to terms in discovery requests. Advanced Visual Image Design, LLC v. Exist, Inc., 2015 WL 4934178, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015) (citing Bryant v. Armstrong, 285 F.R.D. 596, 606 (S.D. Cal. 2012)). Parties have an “obligation to construe ... discovery requests in a reasonable manner.” Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614, 618-19 (D. Colo. 2007); see also King-Hardy v. Bloomfield Bd. of Educ., 2002 WL 32506294, at *5 (D. Conn. Dec. 8, 2002) (finding the responding party must give discovery requests a reasonable construction, rather than strain to find ambiguity); McCoo v. Denny's Inc., 192 F.R.D. 675, 694 (D. Kan. 2000) (“A party responding to discovery requests should exercise reason and common sense to attribute ordinary definitions to terms and phrases utilized ....” (internal quotation marks omitted)). A propounding party may move for an order compelling production of documents in response to a request for production if the responding party fails to produce documents as requested under Rule 34. See Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(i), (iv). An evasive or incomplete answer or response is treated as a failure to answer or respond. Rule 37(a)(4). “Upon a motion to compel discovery, the movant has the initial burden of demonstrating relevance. In turn, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that discovery should not be allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining and supporting its objections with competent evidence.” United States v. McGraw–Hill Cos., 2014 WL 1647385, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). III. DISCUSSION The following Requests for Production (“RFPs”), as best the Court can read them, and Responses, are at issue in the Motion: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: That Defendant Lugo produce the official documents Kern County Neurological Medical Group, Inc. dated 2/1/2007 the day plaintiff was diagnosed by Quintana Carlos MD, Neurology. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Defendant objects to this Request on the following grounds (1) it is vague and ambiguous as to the use of the phrase “official documents” requiring Defendant to guess as to the intended meaning; (2) the request exceeds the scope of discovery in that it is not relevant to any party's claim or defense given the proportionality of the needs of the case, considering the parties' relative access to the relevant information, the parties' resources, and the importance of the discovery in resolving issues, and the burden and expense of production outweighs its likely benefit; and (3) Defendant also objects to this Request as the documents are equally available to Plaintiff, because Plaintiff can access these documents by requesting copies of his medical records by sending a Form1 22 to the medical records department. Without waiving; and subject to those objections, Defendant responds as follows: *3 After a diligent search, no such documents exist in the custody, possession, or control of Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: That Defendant Lugo produce the official documents [illegible] Neuroscience and Spine [illegible] dated 6/18/2009 the day plaintiff was diagnosed by Hamid A. 28 Salen, MD, Neurologist. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Defendant objects to this Request on the following grounds (1) it is vague and ambiguous as to the use of the phrase “official documents” requiring Defendant to guess as to the intended meaning; (2) the request exceeds the scope of discovery in that it is not relevant to any party's claim or defense given the proportionality of the needs of the case, considering the parties' relative access to the relevant information, the parties' resources, and the importance of the discovery in resolving issues, and the burden and expense of production outweighs its likely benefit; and (3) Defendant also objects to this Request as the documents are equally available to Plaintiff, because Plaintiff can access these documents by requesting copies of his medical records by sending a Form 22 to the medical records department. Without waiving, and subject to these objections, Defendant responds as follows: After a diligent search, no such documents exist in the custody, possession, or control of Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: That Defendant Lugo produce the official documents [illegible] Radiology Medical Group, L.P. dated 4/17/2009 the day plaintiff was diagnosed by Dr. Charles Yoo. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Defendant objects to this Request on the following grounds (1) it is vague and ambiguous as to the use of the phrase “official documents” requiring Defendant to guess as to the intended meaning; (2) the request exceeds the scope of discovery in that it is not relevant to any party's claim or defense given the proportionality of the needs of the case, considering the parties ‘ relative access to the relevant information, the parties’ resources, and the importance of the discovery in resolving issues, and the burden and expense of production outweighs its likely benefit; and (3) Defendant also objects to this Request as the documents are equally available to Plaintiff, because Plaintiff can access these documents by requesting copies of his medical records by sending a Form 22 to the medical records department Without waiving, and subject to these objections, Defendant responds as follows: After a diligent search, no such documents exist in the custody, possession, or control of Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: That Defendant Lugo produce the official documents (CDCR) medical progress note dated 2/23/2011 the day plaintiff was diagnosed by Edward Birdsong, DO. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Defendant objects to this Request on the following grounds (1) it is vague and ambiguous as to the use of the phrase “official documents” requiring Defendant to guess as to the intended meaning; (2) the request exceeds the scope of discovery in that it is not relevant to any party's claim or defense given the proportionality of the needs of the case, considering the parties' relative access to the relevant information, the parties' resources, and the importance of the discovery in resolving issues, and the burden and expense of production outweighs its likely benefit; and (3) Defendant also objects to this Request as the documents are equally available to Plaintiff, because Plaintiff can access these documents by requesting copies of his medical records by sending a Form 22 to the medical records department Without waiving, and subject to these objections, Defendant responds as follows: *4 After a diligent search, no such documents exist in the custody, possession, or control of Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: That Defendant Lugo produce the official documents 602 grievance complaints filed against you from 1/16/2014 to 12/31/2019. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Defendant objects to this Request on the following grounds (1) it is overly broad as to time and scope; (2) it lacks foundation and does not describe the material requested with reasonable particularity to determine what is sought and all the opportunity for appropriate objections; (3) it is compound; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to any party's claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case, considering the issues at stake in the litigation and the importance of the discovery in resolving issues; (5) it seeks information shielded from disclosure by the official information privilege pursuant to federal common law, and seeks information that invades the privacy rights of Defendants in peace officer personnel records protected by state and federal privilege, California Penal Code sections 832.7 and the California Peace Officer's Bill of Rights and disclosure violates the procedures outlined in California Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045; (6) it seeks documents that will contain the information of other inmates, in violation of section 3370 of Title 15 in the California Code of Regulations, which protects inmate information from disclosure to other inmates and the public; (7) propensity evidence is generally not admissible in civil rights cases (see Gates v. Rivera, 993 F.2d 696, 700 (9th Cir. 1993); see also 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.”); and (8) evidence of complaints filed by other inmates is not relevant to establish defendant's liability. See Reynoso v. Sayre, No. C 11-4525 CW (PR), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130782, at *21-22 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2013). The federal rules do not favor ‘’fishing expeditions.” See Kemp v. Ryan, 638 F.3d 1245, 1260 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he desire to engage in [in improper fishing expedition cannot supply ‘good cause’ sufficient to justify discovery.”). Without waiving these objections and expressly subject thereto, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant produces a Privilege Log and Declaration of D. Sanchez, Correctional Counselor II and Litigation Coordinator describing and explaining the privileged and confidential nature of the documents sought by Plaintiff. Further, construing Plaintiffs request for production as seeking the administrative grievances he filed that contain a, reference to Defendant Lugo, Defendant also produces administrative grievances LAC-B-17-01167, LAC-17-B03165, and LAC-B-17-04904, marked as AGO 0060 - 0071. With respect to RFP Nos. 22-25, Defendant Lugo responded that after a diligent search, he had no responsive documents within his possession, custody, or control. In opposing the Motion, Defendant Lugo reiterated that he had no such responsive documents at the time of the response, but in further searching following the filing of the Motion, counsel for Defendant Lugo was advised that the following documents, which correspond with the documents requested by RFP Nos. 22-25, were located: *5 • Diagnosis of Quintana Carlos, MD at the Kern County Neurological Medical Group, February 1, 2007; • Diagnosis of Charles Yoo, MD at the Radiology Medical Group, April 17, 2009; • Diagnosis of Hamid A. Salen, MD at the Bakersfield Neuroscience and Spine Group, June 18, 2009; and • CDCR medical progress note of Edward Birdsong, DO, February 23, 2011. Opp. at 3-4 & Exh. A. Counsel for Defendant Lugo represents that a supplemental response will be served, along with the four records, “as soon as possible” after the records are received by counsel, estimated to be within 14 days of June 17, 2020. As it appears Defendant Lugo, through counsel, now has or will shortly have within his possession, custody, or control the four documents referenced above that are responsive to RFP Nos. 22-25, Defendant Lugo is ORDERED to produce the four records described above to Plaintiff within 21 days from the date of this Order. With respect to RFP No. 37, the Court finds that the request, as worded, seeks discovery that is disproportionate 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.” Rule 26(b)(1). In particular, the Court notes that both the time frame for the request, covering nearly six years, including many years after the events at issue in the case occurred, and the subject matter, which is not tied in any way to the particular issues in this case, render the request hopelessly overbroad, resulting in an undue burden for records that facially are not tied to the specific allegations at issue here. The Court makes no ruling as to the validity of Defendant Lugo's other objections to RFP No. 37, and this ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiff propounding a more narrowly tailored request. IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Therefore, the Motion (Dkt. 84), is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: 1. The Motion is GRANTED as to RFP No. 22-25. Defendant Lugo shall produce to Plaintiff within 21 days from the date of this Order, the following documents: • Diagnosis of Quintana Carlos, MD at the Kern County Neurological Medical Group, February 1, 2007; • Diagnosis of Charles Yoo, MD at the Radiology Medical Group, April 17, 2009; • Diagnosis of Hamid A. Salen, MD at the Bakersfield Neuroscience and Spine Group, June 18, 2009; and • CDCR medical progress note of Edward Birdsong, DO, February 23, 2011. 2. The Motion is DENIED as to RFP No. 37. In addition, as the Motion is granted in part and denied in part, the Court has discretion to apportion an award of expenses in bringing the motion. The Court finds no such award warranted here to either party, in part because neither party completely prevailed, in part because Defendant did not request an award and Plaintiff has not set forth any expenses he actually incurred in bringing the Motion, and in part because each party's position was substantially justified, rendering an award against either party unjust and unwarranted under the circumstances. See Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(ii); (a)(5)(B). *6 IT IS SO ORDERED.