Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00148/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00148-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD FOSTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0148 GEB JFM P

vs.

E. MERAZ, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendant Meraz violated his rights under the Eighth

Amendment by refusing to provide plaintiff with meals on several occasions. On October 10,

2006, plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling discovery responses and a motion for leave

to serve additional discovery requests. Defendant opposes both motions.

Plaintiff seeks an order requiring defendant to “answer fully” interrogatories 2, 3,

4, 11 and 12 in plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories, and to provide copies of documents

requested in his first request for production of documents. The interrogatories were served on

defendant on or about August 9, 2006, and defendant served responses on or about September

19, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00148-GEB -JFM Document 59 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

In interrogatory number 1 plaintiff asked defendant if he provided plaintiff with a

lunch on August 19, 2004 and August 21, 2004. (Ex. A to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, filed

October 10, 2006, at 1.) Defendant’s response to that interrogatory was that he remembered

serving meals to plaintiff, but not specifically on the dates in question. (Id.) Interrogatory

number 2 followed interrogatory number 1 by asking defendant to state “specifically and in

detail. [sic] As accurately as you can remember the exact sequence of events that occurred that

dictated plaintiff’s not receiving his lunches on these dates.” (Id. at 2.) Defendant’s response to

the second interrogatory was the same as the first. (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s argument in support of this aspect of his motion flows from the

erroneous assumption that defendant’s response to these interrogatories constituted a tacit

acknowledgment that he did not provide plaintiff lunch on those days. Plaintiff’s argument

misinterprets defendant’s response. Defendant’s response to interrogatory # 2 is sufficient and

no further response will be required.

In interrogatory number 3, plaintiff asked if defendant provided plaintiff with

breakfast and lunch on August 25, 2004, and in interrogatory number 4, plaintiff asked, if the

answer to interrogatory number 3 was no, for an explanation why breakfast and lunch had not

been provided on that day. Defendant’s responses to interrogatories 3 and 4 were identical to the

responses provided for interrogatories 1 and 2, specifically referring to August 19, 2004 and

August 2004. Plaintiff objects to defendant’s failure to respond to the request of these

interrogatories for information about meal service on August 25, 2004. On October 26, 2006,

defendant Meraz served plaintiff with supplemental responses to these interrogatories, stating

that he remembers providing meals to plaintiff, but cannot recall if he provided meals to plaintiff

on August 25, 2004. (Ex. A to Defendants’ [sic] Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and

Opposition to Motion to Serve Additional Discovery, filed October 26, 2006, at 2.) The

supplemental responses are adequate and no further response will be required.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00148-GEB -JFM Document 59 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

In interrogatory numbers 11 and 12, plaintiff sought information concerning the

identity of individuals who caused him to be served on paper trays between August 26, 2004 and

September 25, 2004. In the motion to compel, plaintiff contended the responses were

inadequate. Defendant Meraz served supplemental responses to these interrogatories on October

26, 2006. (Ex. A to Opposition, at 2-3.) The supplemental responses are adequate and no further

responses will be required. 

Plaintiff also seeks to compel production of documents in response to requests 1

and five in his first request for production of documents. By request number 1, plaintiff sought

housing logs for Facility C, Building 8 at High Desert State Prison for the period from August

19, 2004 through September 25, 2004. Defendant initially objected on grounds of relevance,

privilege, and confidentiality. (Ex. B to Opposition, at 2.) On October 26, 2006, defendants

served a supplemental response, providing plaintiff with a redacted copy of those parts of the

housing logs that pertain to plaintiff. (Id. at 3.) No further response will be required. 

By request number 5, plaintiff sought “CDC 7230 from plaintiffs [sic] medical

files depicting medical treatment from between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2004.” (Ex.

B to Motion to Compel, at 3.) Defendant objected to this request on the ground that it was overly

vague and burdensome, and on the ground that defendant did not have possession, custody or

control of plaintiff’s medical file and that plaintiff had the right to obtain copies from his medical

file pursuant to institutional procedures. (Id. at 4.) In his motion to compel, plaintiff states that

he has encountered “resistance” in his efforts to obtain these documents from his medical file,

and that he was requesting defendant’s assistance with his efforts to get the documents. (Motion

to Compel, at 9.) Good cause appearing, counsel for defendant will be directed to take all steps

necessary to arrange for plaintiff to review his medical file in accordance with institutional

procedures. In all other respects, no further response to request number 5 will be required.

Plaintiff also seeks leave of court to propound additional interrogatories to

defendant Meraz. Defendant opposes the request both because it was filed after the deadline for

Case 2:05-cv-00148-GEB -JFM Document 59 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

service of discovery requests set by this court’s July 28, 2006 scheduling order, and because

plaintiff has shown no basis for exceeding the twenty-five interrogatory limit set in the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court has reviewed the additional interrogatories proposed by plaintiff. 

(Attachment 1 to Motion for Leave to Serve a Second Set of Interrogatories, filed October 10,

2006.) The court finds that the proposed interrogatories are not “consistent with the principles of

Rule 26(b)(2)” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). The proposed

new interrogatories , while they focus on different dates on which plaintiff was allegedly denied

meals and/or fed on paper trays, are in the same form as the interrogatories already propounded

to defendant Meraz. Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to inquire of defendant Meraz whether

he ever denied meals to plaintiff during any time relevant to this action and whether he ever fed

plaintiff on paper trays, and the burden and expense of requiring defendant Meraz to answer

twenty-five more interrogatories focused on the same issue but different dates outweighs any

likely benefit from allowing the requested discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). For these

reasons, plaintiff’s request will be denied. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. With the exception of the requirement of paragraph 2 of this order, plaintiff’s

October 10, 2006 motion to compel is denied;

2. Within ten days from the date of this order, counsel for defendant shall take all

steps necessary to arrange for plaintiff to review his medical file in accordance with institutional

procedures; and

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00148-GEB -JFM Document 59 Filed 06/13/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

3. Plaintiff’s October 10, 2006 request for leave to serve a second set of

interrogatories is denied

DATED: June 12, 2007.

12

fost0148.mtc

Case 2:05-cv-00148-GEB -JFM Document 59 Filed 06/13/07 Page 5 of 5