Lopez v. Lee

Background

Andrew Lopez, who was incarcerated at the time of the events and was housed at San Quentin State Prison when this order was issued, brought a civil-rights action concerning events at Pelican Bay State Prison. He alleges that officers S. Cupp, Hamner, Cross, M. Lee, Brewer, and K. Davis retaliated against him for filing grievances between May 2020 and March 2021 by denying or limiting his phone, yard, and shower time. The court previously found that the complaint stated First Amendment retaliation claims against those defendants and related California Bane Act claims. This order addressed Lopez’s three motions to compel discovery.

Discovery standards and general rulings

The court explained that a motion to compel is used when a party has a good-faith basis to believe that a discovery response is unjustified or missing. It is not a way to ask the court to decide that an opponent’s response is false, strike ordinary objections, determine disputed facts, or declare that requests are relevant in every respect. Discovery must be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. The court also concluded that defendants could generally limit answers to information within their own knowledge and were not required to investigate matters involving other defendants or third parties.

The court denied requests seeking broad records about other inmates, prison staff, prison policies, social-media accounts and electronic devices, documents referencing Lopez, and communications between prison facilities. It also denied production of correctional officers’ post orders after finding that defendants properly invoked the official-information privilege, that production was disproportionate, and that identified security concerns weighed against disclosure.

First motion to compel

The court denied the first motion to compel, Docket No. 48, in its entirety. It denied Lopez’s request to deem his requests for admissions admitted because defendants’ responses were timely after the court granted their request for an extension. It also denied relief concerning interrogatories and related requests for production about defendants’ job duties, post orders, staff responsible for phone access, prison telephone and shower procedures, telephone-record storage, other inmates’ records, and related information. The court found that the responses were not deficient or that the requested discovery was irrelevant, disproportionate, unduly burdensome, or affected by security concerns.

Second motion to compel

The court granted in part and denied in part the second motion to compel, Docket No. 57. It denied the requests for production, including requests for phone, yard, and shower logs; information about other inmates; information about representatives of the outside company handling inmate calls; documents referencing Lopez; communications between prison facilities; and defendant Cross’s last known address. It also denied the electronic interrogatories directed to Cupp and Lee concerning social-media accounts, electronic devices, and related policies.

The court granted the motion as to specified requests for admissions because some responses appeared insufficient. The affected requests concerned events involving the responding defendants, responses stating that the defendant lacked enough information to admit or deny an event in which the defendant was involved, responses stating “Based on the foregoing objection, Defendant denies,” and four requests to which defendants had provided no response. The court ordered supplemental responses within two weeks. The requests covered were: Brewer—RFA Nos. 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 26, 33-48; Cupp—RFA Nos. 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 26, 35-39; Hamner—RFA Nos. 33-35, 37-54, 56, 59-65; and Lee—RFA Nos. 6, 10, 13, 14, 21, 26, 33-35, 36-39, 41, 43-54, 55-60, 64-81, 83-85, 88-92, and 94-98. The court denied the motion as to the remaining requests for admissions.

Third motion to compel and disposition

The court denied the third motion to compel, Docket No. 66, in its entirety. That motion concerned requests for admissions served on January 6, 2025, including requests about other inmate barbers’ phone access, Lopez’s status as an inmate barber, letters and prison forms that some defendants had not seen, and a memorandum concerning the inmate barber program. The court found that defendants’ objections were supported where they lacked personal knowledge and that defendants gave substantive responses to the remaining requests.

The final order therefore denied the first and third motions to compel in their entireties, granted in part and denied in part the second motion to compel, required supplemental responses to the specified requests for admissions within two weeks, and denied the remainder of the second motion. The order terminated Docket Nos. 48, 57, and 66.