Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jonathan Christopher Coffer is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against Garcia and other defendants in the Eastern District of California. The case is at the discovery stage. On August 17, 2026, the court issued a Discovery Order, docketed at ECF No. 35, directing the parties to promptly produce certain documents central to the dispute. These included documents regarding exhaustion of Plaintiff's claims, such as his 602 grievances, and Plaintiff's medical records related to the incidents.
On September 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed an objection, ECF No. 37, asking for an order that would let him delay producing relevant documents until after trial. He explained that he wanted to question defendants at trial about matters in his grievances and did not want them to see the document beforehand, which he described as tampering with his defense. He also objected to producing medical notes from a treatment area unit, saying he did not want defendants to have them so early. Defendants opposed on September 15, 2026, arguing that the objection and its reasoning ran contrary to the purpose of civil discovery and the court's order, and asked the court to overrule it. Plaintiff's statements are his contentions. The order resolves only the discovery dispute and makes no findings on the underlying claims.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean overruled Plaintiff's objection. The order directs Plaintiff to produce all documents responsive to the August 17, 2026 order and to file a notice of compliance no later than November 16, 2026. This is a discovery order requiring compliance. It is not a final judgment, does not dismiss any claim, and imposes no sanction.
The court began with the purpose of discovery, quoting that it makes trial less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest extent possible, and that it narrows and clarifies disputed issues. It then applied Rule 26(b)(1), which allows discovery of nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. It noted that the party resisting discovery bears the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objection. The court found Plaintiff did not carry that burden. He referred to uncertain evidence and medical notes without supporting the objection or showing why the documents should not be produced.
The court reasoned that because Plaintiff himself labeled the documents as evidence for trial, they are relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and must be produced under Rule 26 and the Discovery Order, which specifically described 602 documents and medical records. The only reason offered, the advantage of surprise at trial, is not permitted under Rule 37(c)(1). The court cited Ninth Circuit authority that the Rule 37 exclusion sanction is self-executing and automatic and does not require willfulness or bad faith, but it did not impose that sanction here.
Key Takeaways
- A party cannot delay producing court-ordered grievances and medical records until trial simply to preserve the element of surprise in questioning witnesses.
- The party resisting discovery bears the burden of explaining and supporting its objection, and a vague statement of tactical preference did not meet that burden.
- Describing documents as evidence the party plans to use at trial helps establish their relevance under Rule 26 and Evidence Rule 401.
- The order cites Rule 37(c)(1) as a warning that undisclosed information may be excluded at trial, but it did not itself impose any exclusion or other sanction.
- Plaintiff must produce responsive documents and file a notice of compliance by November 16, 2026, and the underlying merits remain undecided.
Why It Matters
The order is a short, unpublished magistrate judge ruling and carries no precedential weight, but it illustrates how a federal court in the Eastern District handled a self-represented prisoner's attempt to hold back documents for trial. Plaintiff's pro se status did not change the court's application of Rules 26 and 37 to this request, and the court relied on its own earlier discovery order that named the categories of documents.
What remains open is whether Plaintiff will comply by the deadline, whether any later motion would seek exclusion or other relief under Rule 37 if he does not, and the merits of his claims, including exhaustion, which the order does not address. Practitioners should note that objections based on trial strategy rather than privilege, burden, or relevance are unlikely to succeed.