Bryant v. Armstrong
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82806
S.D. Cal.2012Background
- Bryant, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a §1983 complaint in 2008 with amendments through 2010; discovery is ongoing after initial dismissal motions and a case management conference; several defendants answered and a discovery stay was issued pending resolution of a motion to dismiss; Bryant moved to compel discovery from four defendants across multiple sets and motions (ECF Nos. 53,56,66,71,74,82,86); the court ruled discovery motions are suitable for resolution on the papers under Civil Local Rule 7.1 and granted/denied in part; pretrial dates are vacated pending summary judgment. Bryant’s claims include race-based Equal Protection, retaliation, and civil-rights violations related to disciplinary and housing decisions. Armstrong, Lizarraga, Ochoa, Janda, Catlett, Janda, Trujillo are among the defendants implicated in various alleged discriminatory and retaliatory actions. The court addresses timeliness, possession/control, relevance, and privilege as to the contested discovery requests and orders supplemental productions where warranted. The final order grants in part and denies in part Bryant’s motions, with specific guidance on supplemental responses due by a deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness and waiver of Ochoa’s responses | Bryant says Ochoa delayed responding during/after the discovery stay. | Ochoa complied within applicable time and stay rules; late dates were not waivers. | Ochoa’s responses untimely; objections waived; compelled supplement. |
| Privilege and disclosure of personnel records (interrog. 1) | Interrogatory seeks relevant personnel-file data; not protected under federal privilege. | Official information privilege applies; must be justified with specific logs and affidavits. | Privilege overruled; full disclosure ordered; no proper privilege showing. |
| Interrogatory 2 (Armstrong) relevance and confidentiality | Reasons for arrest relevant to credibility and bias; could show discriminatory intent. | Requests invade privacy and seek confidential personnel data. | Interrogatory 2 deemed relevant; privilege lacking; overruled; order for response granted. |
| Document request 1 (Armstrong set 1) possession/control | Armstrong has control via attorney general representation; records accessible. | Armstrong is a former employee with no access/possession to CDCR documents. | Denied; no control over documents from former employer; request denied. |
| Interrogatories 11-12 (Lizarraga) races of inmates in ASU #2 | Lizarrraga can obtain race data via yard logs; information directly relevant to retaliation claim. | No readily available sources; would require cross-referencing central files; Coleman-like burden. | Motion granted; Lizarraga must supplement with verified responses; provide steps taken. |
| Armstrong/Ochoa set 2 and set 3 requests on policies/training | Requests seek documents supporting non-discrimination findings; relevant to credibility. | Requests seek policy documents; may be privileged or irrelevant; responses sufficient. | Moots/denials where appropriate; Ochoa to provide verified responses; set 3 to be supplemented. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerr v. U.S. District Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192 (9th Cir.1975) (federal privilege law governs discovery in civil rights actions)
- Crowe v. County of San Diego, 242 F.Supp.2d 740 (S.D. Cal.2003) (state privilege law not controlling in federal civil rights cases; federal law governs privilege)
- Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal.1987) (official-information privilege requires substantial threshold showing and privilege log)
- Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292 (C.D. Cal.1992) (balance approach for privilege in civil rights discovery)
- Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. Cal.1995) (need for affidavit and in-camera review when asserting official-information privilege)
- Frontier-Kemper Constructors, Inc. v. Elk Run Coal Co., 246 F.R.D. 522 (S.D. W.Va.2007) (duty to make exhaustive efforts to locate information when answering interrogatories)