Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
John W. Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After screening, he elected to proceed on Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force against Defendant Oaks, failure to protect against Defendant Pascoe, sexual assault against Oaks, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Oaks, Pascoe, Riddle, Beer, Garcia, and Cubos. The present order concerns discovery rather than the merits of those claims.
On March 30, 2026, Williams moved to compel Defendant Pascoe to produce emails from Investigative Employees Arjon and Aviles at the California Health Care Facility and training documents concerning chemical agents. The magistrate judge's October 15, 2026 order granted the motion in part and overruled Pascoe's official-information-privilege objection in part. As relevant here, the magistrate judge found that Williams had not established that the requested Arjon and Aviles emails actually existed. The order also noted that Defendants had supplied defense counsel's sworn declaration describing the search and had produced a September 27, 2019 email from Investigative Employee Cristena.
Williams sought reconsideration on October 28, 2026. He argued that the magistrate judge had not considered his reply brief supporting the motion to compel and had erred by accepting defense counsel's declaration instead of requiring one from the custodian of records. He again asked the court to compel production of emails from Arjon and Aviles. A footnote also clarified that, although Williams referred to an October 14 order, the docket showed that the discovery order issued on October 15.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge analyzed the request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Rule 230(j). The order explained that reconsideration generally requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law, absent highly unusual circumstances. Disagreement with the decision and repetition of arguments already considered do not satisfy the movant's burden; the party must present facts or law strongly convincing enough to justify reversing the prior order.
Applying that standard, the magistrate judge found that Williams's reply brief did not call into question the conclusion that Defendants had taken multiple steps to locate responsive emails, produced the September 27, 2019 email, and provided a legally adequate response to Request for Production No. 13. The reply attached a log of actions taken by Arviles and Arjon before Investigative Employee Christena took over the investigation, but the log did not indicate that either employee attempted to email Defendants. Thus, the material Williams said had been overlooked did not establish the existence of additional responsive emails or show clear error in the earlier ruling.
The magistrate judge also rejected Williams's argument that Defendants had to submit a declaration from the records custodian. The order stated that, at this discovery phase, no legal authority imposed that requirement, citing Rule 26(g)(1). Because Williams failed to carry his Rule 60 burden, the magistrate judge denied his Motion and Request for Reconsideration of the October 15, 2026 order, ECF No. 234. The order did not decide the underlying Eighth Amendment claims or reopen the prior discovery disposition.
Key Takeaways
- A reply brief's attachment did not undermine the earlier finding that Defendants had taken multiple steps to locate responsive emails and adequately answered the production request.
- The investigation log did not show that Arviles or Arjon attempted to email Defendants, so it did not establish that the additional emails Williams sought existed.
- The magistrate judge held that no legal authority required Defendants to provide a records custodian's declaration at this discovery phase.
- Reconsideration requires more than disagreement with a discovery ruling or repetition of arguments the court previously considered.
- The denial left the October 15, 2026 discovery order in place and did not resolve the merits of Williams's Eighth Amendment claims.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the demanding standard applied to reconsideration of a discovery order: the moving party must identify material that genuinely undermines the prior reasoning, not merely renew the original dispute. Here, the magistrate judge examined the reply brief and its attached log and explained why neither changed the conclusions about the email search and production response.
The ruling also separates two distinct discovery questions—whether requested emails were shown to exist and what declaration was required to substantiate the search. Williams prevailed on neither in this motion. The October 15 order had granted his motion to compel only in part and overruled Pascoe's privilege objection only in part; this later order denied reconsideration without expanding production or adjudicating the underlying constitutional claims.