1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, 3:21-cv-00055-RSH-BGS 13 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING

DISCOVERY DISPUTES

14 v.

15 [ECF 122]

M. POLLARD, ET AL.,

16 Defendants. 17

18 On November 21, 2023, this Court held a discovery conference regarding 19 disputes over Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (RFPs) and Interrogatories 20 (ROGs). (See ECF 122.) In accordance with the Court’s resolution of the discovery 21 disputes during the Conference, the Court ORDERS the following: 22 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties may obtain discovery 23 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense 24 and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues 25 at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to 26 relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in 27 resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 28 1 outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be 2 admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 3 District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery 4 purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). District courts 5 also have broad discretion to limit discovery to prevent its abuse. See Fed. R. Civ. 6 P. 26(b)(2). The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of first 7 establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Federal Rule of 8 Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 693, 610 (N.D. Cal. 9 1995). 10 Plaintiff sought enforcement of RFPs 5-9 of his Second set of RFPs to 11 Defendant Pollard. Plaintiff agreed to limit the date range to December 2020 to 12 December 2021. Over Defendants’ objection but with Plaintiff’s agreement, the 13 Court found that complaints by employees for not following COVID-19 protocols 14 (RFP 5) and memorandum filed by employees concerning complaints about not 15 following COVID-19 protocols (RFP 6) were relevant to Plaintiff’s case. Further, 16 letters of instructions issued to subordinates concerning violations of COVID-19 17 protocols (RFP 7), documents which show corrective action taken against 18 subordinates for not following COVID-19 protocols (RFP 8), and documents which 19 show adverse action taken against subordinates for not following COVID-19 20 protocols (RFP 9) were relevant to Plaintiff’s case and therefore discoverable. 21 Plaintiff has alleged in his complaint that employees did not follow COVID-19 22 protocols which resulted in injury to him. This discovery would tend to support that 23 allegation. Defendant indicated he would inquire for this discovery and contact 24 Plaintiff with the results within two weeks. 25 Plaintiff sought discovery requested in RFPs 1-2, 8 and 10 of his first set of 26 RFPs to Defendant Pollard. Defendant responded that they had no responsive 27 documents. Plaintiff requested a certificate from the custodian of records, which the 28 1 | Court denied. 2 In his third set of ROGs to Defendant Pollard, Plaintiff requested the names 3} of porters for Facility A, Buildings 1 and 2. Defendant conducted a good faith 4 inquiry for this information. The Facility responded that it did not have that 5 | information. Plaintiff concurred with that response. 6 Plaintiff requested responses to ROGs 1-3, 6-7 in his second set of ROGs to 7 | Defendant Allison. The Court found that ROGs 1-3 and 7 were not relevant to any 8 important issue in the case. The Court further found that Defendant had answered 9 | ROG6. 10 Dated: December 8, 2023 GE abba _ 12 on. Bernard G. Skomal B United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dedar (291-7 DNNS<_P □□□□