Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Skinner v. Ryan

United States District Court, D. Arizona

May 13, 2014

James E. Skinner, Plaintiff,
v.
Charles L. Ryan, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

LAWRENCE O. ANDERSON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery in which Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Ryan to produce documents responsive to his requests for production. (Doc. 102) Defendant has filed a Response and Plaintiff has filed a Reply. (Docs. 116, 117) Plaintiff also filed a Supplement to his Motion to Compel. (Doc. 121) Also pending is Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions against Defendants' counsel. (Doc. 115) Defendants' counsel has filed a Response and Plaintiff has filed a Reply. (Docs. 124, 130) Plaintiff also filed a Supplement to his Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. (Doc. 118)

I. Background

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 14, 2012, by lodging a Complaint. (Docs. 1-2) Plaintiff also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted. (Docs. 3, 6) On September 21, 2012, the assigned District Judge denied Plaintiff's request to exceed the page limit and file the Complaint, but granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days thereafter. (Doc. 6)

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on October 2, 2012. (Doc. 8) Plaintiff raised two grounds for relief against seventeen separate defendants. In Count I, Plaintiff alleged he is being deprived of basic necessities in violation of the Eighth Amendment, including inadequate plumbing in his cell, unsanitary conditions in his cell and other areas, and the failure to provide cleaning supplies to address the unsanitary conditions. Plaintiff claims that for nine months he was housed in a cell in which the base of the toilet leaked every time it was used, which caused flooding, and that he was not provided adequate supplies to address the problem. He further claims that when he was eventually moved to a different cell in a different housing unit, the walls of the cell appeared to have blood and dried feces on them. He claims that during the several months he was there, he repeatedly requested supplies to clean his cell but received adequate supplies on only one occasion. Plaintiff also claims that outdoor recreation cages and an outer stairwell were covered with cat waste and pigeon droppings. He claims these contaminants were then tracked back to his cell. Plaintiff claims he informed Defendants of these issues but they failed to take any action to resolve the problems.

In Count II, Plaintiff alleged prison officials retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment for filing a previous federal civil rights lawsuit. The District Judge screened the First Amended Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) on February 19, 2013. (Doc. 9) The District Judge dismissed Count II for failure to state a claim, along with three defendants, but ordered fourteen defendants to answer the allegations in Count I.[1] (Doc. 9 at 15) Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, along with declaratory and injunctive relief. (Doc. 8 at 20)

II. Motion to Compel

In the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant Ryan to produce documents responsive to his eight requests for production. Defendant's Response to the Motion to Compel indicates that, while Defendant objected to all of Plaintiff's requests for various reasons, Defendant produced 19 pages of documents, identified by Defendant as "Skinner's Detention Record, " in response to two of the requests. In response to a third request, Defendant produced 238 pages identified as "Toilet Repair Work Orders." (Doc. 116 at 9-32) Otherwise, Defendant contends the responses are sufficient and the objections proper. Defendant, however, also lists eleven categories of documents that counsel for Defendants "has been waiting for some months now for ADC [Arizona Department of Corrections] to provide."[2] (Doc. 116 at 7-8)

A. Legal Standards for Discovery

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C)." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). These limitations reflect that, in addition to being relevant, discovery must also be proportional to the issues and needs of the case. Kaiser v. BMW of North America, LLC, 2013 WL 1856578, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)). Rule 26(b)(2)(C) provides:

On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rules if it determines that:
(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;
(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or
(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.

Thus, the court must "strike[] the proper balance between permitting relevant discovery and limiting the scope and burdens of the discovery to what is proportional to the case." Kaiser, 2013 WL at *3. Moreover, "[b]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery, and its decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant." Hallet v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1305 (9th Cir. 1996)).

B. Application

Plaintiff's first request states:

RFP No. 1: "Budget Records: For the relevant time frame produce any and all ADC budget records for ASPC - Florence and ASPC - Eyman including detailed documentation for any line items related to plumbing repair, flooding incidents, plumbing maintenance, cleaning supplies and equipment, inmates cleaning crews, and prophylactic supplies for dealing with ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.