Tooker v. Mak

Background

Charles W. Tooker, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility, brought this unrepresented civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendants T. Mak and Deverick, described as facility lieutenants, and Lee, described as a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation appeals coordinator, denied him due process in disciplinary proceedings.

The defendants filed a motion to compel further discovery responses, a motion for summary judgment, and a request to file certain documents under seal. This order decided the discovery and sealing motions and reset the deadline for Tooker’s opposition to summary judgment. It did not decide the summary-judgment motion or the merits of Tooker’s due-process claims.

Motion to Compel

The court found that the disputed requests sought relevant, nonprivileged information proportional to the needs of the case. It rejected Tooker’s practice of referring generally to his complaint or prior filings instead of directly answering the discovery requests.

Requests for Admissions. The defendants served eight requests for admission about issues including whether particular defendants participated in a disciplinary hearing or grievance review, what sanctions resulted from a rules-violation report, whether Tooker identified inmate witnesses, and whether he was involved in a fight with another inmate on July 21, 2019.

The court found Tooker’s blanket response nonresponsive and not made in good faith. It nevertheless denied the defendants’ request to have the requests treated as admitted at that time. The court ordered Tooker to provide complete responses, without objections and with the required signature, within 14 days of the order. It warned that failure to provide complete, good-faith responses could result in the requests being deemed admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3).

Interrogatories. The court granted the defendants’ request to compel further responses to Defendant Deverick’s Interrogatories Nos. 1–5 and 8. Tooker had referred to other answers or generally to his complaint, and the court found those responses inadequate. Tooker was ordered, within 14 days, to provide complete responses under oath and without objections. He also had to serve signed responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 7.

Requests for production. The court granted the defendants’ request to compel complete responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1–3 and 6. Tooker had referred generally to his complaint, including in response to a request for documents supporting his allegation that he requested inmate witnesses. He was ordered to provide complete responses under oath and without objections within 14 days, and to serve signed responses to Requests for Production Nos. 4 and 5. If no responsive documents existed, he was required to say so.

Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel. It denied the request to deem the requests for admission admitted but granted the request to compel the additional discovery responses described above.

Motion to Seal

The defendants asked to file under seal the medical records of inmate Odell from July 21, 2019. The court found that protecting the medical privacy of a nonparty was a compelling reason to overcome the usual presumption of public access to court records. The court granted the motion to seal. The records were to remain sealed through the conclusion of the case and any appellate proceedings, subject to the court’s stated records-destruction procedure.

Briefing Schedule and Other Orders

The court granted Tooker an extension until April 1, 2022, to oppose the pending summary-judgment motion. The defendants’ reply was due within 14 days after the opposition was filed. The court stated that if Tooker failed to file an opposition by April 1, the motion would be treated as ready for review. The defendants were ordered to re-serve a courtesy copy of the summary-judgment motion within seven days.

The order also addressed Tooker’s request for a status update and stated that arguments about the merits of his claims should be presented in his opposition to summary judgment. The order terminated Docket Nos. 28 and 33.