(PC)Thomas v. Heberling
1:12-cv-01248
E.D. Cal.May 15, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Horace Bell, proceeding pro se, sues CDCR officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement.
- Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel on March 23, 2015; defendants opposed on April 14, 2015.
- The action names S. Herberling, J. Sheer, and E. Nesmith; issues relate to alleged labeling and yard attacks.
- Court reviews discovery standards for prisoners and balancing privacy/safety with disclosure.
- Ruling granted: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied as to both requests 4 and 5; requests are overly broad, irrelevant, or confidential.
- Court emphasizes pro se leniency but requires specificity and relevance in discovery requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether request 4 is permissible | Bell seeks all personnel files of each defendant | Requests are overbroad, confidential, and not relevant | Denied: overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence |
| Whether request 5 is permissible | Requests all formal/informal complaints against defendants | Overly broad, burdensome, not limited by time/relevance | Denied: overly broad and not limited to relevant period or scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027 (9th Cir. 1991) (privacy and privilege in discovery; official information privilege applies)
- In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 1995) (standards for discovery proportionality and relevance)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (principles governing discovery and protective orders)
- Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242 (9th Cir. 1981) (good faith discovery obligations; refrain from evasive conduct)