(PC) Taylor v. Ohannesson
1:11-cv-00538
| E.D. Cal. | Jun 13, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Tracy Taylor, a pro se incarcerated litigant, sued Kern Valley officers Ohanneson, Duran, and Smith under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment excessive force.
- Defendants answered; discovery proceeded under a scheduling order. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of several categories of documents on May 5, 2014.
- Plaintiff sought: (1) a videotaped post-incident interview of Plaintiff (on DVD); (2) transcripts of Defendants’ testimony at Plaintiff’s criminal trial; and (3) records related to defendants’ use-of-force incidents and personnel actions involving other inmates.
- Defendants opposed on procedural and substantive grounds (e.g., requests were not previously specific, beyond their custody/control, overbroad, privacy/security concerns, and privileged/confidential personnel material).
- The magistrate judge balanced discovery rules, inmate privacy/security considerations, and the need for particularized requests, and resolved each disputed category.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Production of videotaped interview (DVD) | Taylor says the videotape was encompassed by his Requests for Production (Nos. 1, 2, 5) and should be produced. | Defendants argue Taylor never specifically requested the videotape before moving to compel. | Denied — request for the DVD was not made with reasonable particularity in discovery; cannot compel a document not previously requested. |
| Production of criminal-trial transcripts of Defendants’ testimony | Taylor asserts he cannot obtain transcripts himself and needs them for this civil case. | Defendants state they do not possess such transcripts and are not required to obtain or produce third-party records at their expense. | Denied — Defendants are not obligated to procure transcripts; Plaintiff may subpoena or seek them from the court that holds the record. |
| Production of records of other inmates’ complaints/discipline against defendants (broad RFPs) | Taylor seeks personnel, grievance, and investigation records to show pattern, notice, or propensity. | Defendants object as overbroad, vague, invading other inmates’ privacy, implicating safety/security, personnel confidentiality, and official-information privileges. | Denied without prejudice — requests are overbroad or vague; but defendants must produce tailored documents relevant to Taylor’s excessive-force claim (e.g., allegations against defendants within five years prior to the incident), and boilerplate objections are disfavored. |
| Requests for names/titles/duties and CDCR forms (RFPs 2–5) | Taylor requests identifying and incident-specific CDCR forms and administrative documents. | Defendants reiterate objections: time/subject overbreadth, relevance, privacy, privilege, vagueness. | Denied without prejudice — court requires properly tailored, specific requests limited to information relevant to the claim; other generalized objections overruled but privacy/security concerns may be considered in narrowly framed requests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (Rule 26(c) protective orders and privacy considerations in discovery)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (limits on privilege assertions and discovery objections)
- Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242 (9th Cir. 1981) (parties’ discovery obligations and good-faith requirement)
- Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 2008) (reasonable particularity requirement for Rule 34 requests)
- Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2012) (leniency for pro se litigants in discovery disputes)
- Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2005) (district court discretion to manage discovery)
- Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) (pro se litigant considerations and discovery enforcement)