Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225-25/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

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff William Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint, filed on March 14, 2013, for violation of the Eighth Amendment and negligence 

against numerous Defendants.1Pursuant to Court order, discovery was to be completed by September 

29, 2014.

On September 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed numerous discovery motions, including this motion to 

determine the sufficiency of Defendant Alade’s responses to various Requests for Admissions 

(“RFA”) in his First, Second and Third Sets. 

 

1 On September 10, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint naming Doe Defendants.

WILBUR ATCHERLEY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12cv00225 LJO DLB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

DETERMINE SUFFICIENCY OF DEFENDANT 

ALADE’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR 

ADMISSIONS 

(Document 116)

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1 of 15
2

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

27

28

Defendant Alade opposed the motion on October 6, 2014, and Plaintiff filed his reply on 

October 20, 2014. The motion is submitted for decision pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

According to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Defendant Alade treated Plaintiff for a 

period of time in 2010 and 2011. He performed arthroscopic surgery on Plaintiff’s left knee on 

January 18, 2011, and ordered that Plaintiff use a wheelchair for two weeks and that his bandages be 

kept clean and dry until his next appointment. Plaintiff alleges that just prior to the surgery, he told 

Defendant Alade of a prior infection, and Defendant Alade said that he would order antibiotics for 

Plaintiff after surgery. However, Defendant Alade forgot to do so.

Defendant Alade performed a second surgery on Plaintiff’s left knee on February 11, 2011, to 

clean out an infection caused by poor wound care. 

The Court found that Plaintiff stated a claim for medical negligence against Defendant Alade 

based on his alleged failure to prescribe antibiotics after the first surgery. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel 

bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, No. 

CIV S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 

6703958, at *3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 

2010); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 

27, 2008). This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the 

subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is 

relevant and why the responding party=s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at 

*1; Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at 

*4. However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding 

these procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigation; therefore, to the extent possible, 

the Court endeavors to resolve his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 2 of 15
3

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

27

28

F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th 

Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 

AA party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending 

action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the 

application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described 

documents.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). 

If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why 

the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to 

the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer 

or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or 

deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a 

reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable 

inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable 

it to admit or deny. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).

AThe grounds for objecting to a request must be stated,@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5), and with other 

forms of discovery, it is well established that boilerplate objections do not suffice, e.g., Thompson v. 

Yates, No. 1:06-cv-00763-RCC, 2011 WL 5975469, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011); Everest Indem. 

Ins. Co. v. Aventine-Tramonti Homeowners Assoc., No. 2:09-cv-1672-RCJ-RJJ, 2011 WL 3841083, at 

*2 (D. Nev. Aug. 29, 2011); Palladini v. City of Milpitas, No. CV 06-00779 JW (HRL), 2008 WL 

1774090, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2008); Medina v. U.P.S., No. C-06-791 JW PVT, 2007 WL 

2123699, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 23, 2007); Eastridge Personnel of Las Vegas, Inc. v. Du-Orpilla, No. 

2:06-cv-00776-KJD-PAL, 2007 WL 1232229, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 26, 2007); A. Farber & Partners, 

Inc. v. Garber, 237 F.R.D. 250, 255 (C.D. Cal. 2006).

Finally, A[t]he requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or 

objection,@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). AUnless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an 

answer be served. On finding that an answer does not comply with this rule, the court may order 

either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer must be served.@ Id. Efforts to obstruct

discovery through objections or evasive responses which lack any good faith basis will not be 

condoned. Marchand v. Mercy Med. Cntr., 22 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 1994); In re TFT-LCD (Flat 

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 3 of 15
4

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

27

28

Panel) Antitrust Litigation, No. M 07-1827 SI, 2011 WL 3566419, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011); 

Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *1.

DISCUSSION

RFA Number 3

Request

Please admit that it was not normal for plaintiffs [sic] knee following surgery, to be leaking 

and draining more than seven days after the knee surgery took place.

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request is vague and ambiguous 

and calls for expert witness testimony.

Analysis

Defendant’s objections are without merit. Insofar as Defendant Alade objects based on his 

belief that this request requires expert testimony, he is incorrect. This request is based on Plaintiff’s 

knee surgery and the alleged post-operative issues, and Defendant has knowledge of both.

Defendant also argues that the request is vague and ambiguous, contending that it does not 

define which knee surgery, what type of knee surgery, the events surrounding that post-operative 

process, the definition of “normal,” and/or the nature of “leakage and drainage.” ECF No. 132, at 3. 

While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s request is not well-defined, it also recognizes that Plaintiff 

is proceeding pro se. In such circumstances, common sense plays a large role in resolving discovery 

disputes. The Court therefore finds that Defendant’s answer is insufficient, and orders him to respond 

to the request based on his treatment of Plaintiff arising from the January 18, 2011, surgery.

RFA Number 5 

Request

Please admit that plaintiffs [sic] bandage following the January 18, 2011 should have been 

changed at least daily at a minimum, especially if it was leaking and draining.

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 4 of 15
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

27

28

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request is vague and ambiguous, 

compound, an incomplete hypothetical and calls for expert witness testimony. 

Analysis

Defendant’s objections are without merit, for the same reasons discussed in the analysis of RFA 3. 

Defendant’s answer is insufficient and he is ordered to respond to the request based on his treatment of 

Plaintiff arising from the January 18, 2011, surgery.

RFA Number 7 

Request

Please admit that if the allegations plaintiff made in his FAC against the other defendants are true, 

that the plaintiff did not receive the appropriate medical care and treatment for his condition.

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request calls for expert witness 

testimony.

Analysis

This request requires Defendant Alade to go beyond his treatment of Plaintiff and opine as to the 

quality of care he received from the other Defendants. Therefore, the Court agrees that this request calls 

for expert testimony and denies Plaintiff’s motion.

RFA Number 9 

Request

Please admit that you did a second surgery on plaintiff’s left knee on February 11, 2011, to clean 

out the infection caused by poor wound care.

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request calls for expert witness 

testimony. Without waiving said objections, responding party responds: Responding party admits that he 

performed a second surgery on plaintiff’s left knee on February 11, 2011.

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 5 of 15
6

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

27

28

Analysis

Plaintiff argues that is an incomplete response, and that he was seeking to clarify whether the 

surgery was performed for the purpose of cleaning out an infection caused by poor wound care. Plaintiff 

also points to Defendant Alade’s operation report, attached to his motion as Exhibit E, which indicates that 

Plaintiff had poor wound care post-op and that the indication for surgery was “septic arthritis of the left 

knee.” ECF No. 116, at 41.

Given Defendant’s operative report, it seems disingenuous to provide an incomplete answer. To 

the extent that Defendant Alade believes that this request requires expert testimony, he is incorrect. The 

request is directly related to Defendant Alade’s treatment of Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s answer is insufficient and he is ordered to supplement his response.

RFA Number 11 

Request

Please admit that the recommended knee manipulation procedure was never completed by you or 

anyone else as far as you know.

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request calls for speculation. Without 

waiving said objections, responding party responds: Responding party lacks personal knowledge as to 

whether or not the knee manipulation procedure was ever performed.

Analysis

Pursuant to Rule 36, an answering party my only assert lack of knowledge “if the party states that it 

has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to 

enable it to admit or deny.” “Thus, Rule 36 requires the responding party to make a reasonable inquiry, a 

reasonable effort, to secure information that is readily obtainable from persons and documents within the 

responding party’s relative control and to state fully those efforts .” A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber,

237 F.R.D. 250, 254 (C.D.Cal. 2006).

Defendant’s response does not comply with this requirement. While it may be that Defendant 

Alade, who is not employed by CDCR and works at Pacific Orthopedic, may not have sufficient access to 

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 6 of 15
7

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

27

28

Plaintiff’s complete medical file, he must provide further information in his response. However, the 

request also asks whether Defendant himself performed the procedure.

Defendant’s response is therefore insufficient and the Court orders Defendant to supplement his 

response.

RFA Number 13 

Request

Please admit that it would now be too late to complete the knee manipulation procedure on plaintiff 

that was recommended over or almost three years ago.

Response

Responding party objects on the grounds that this request calls for expert witness testimony.

Analysis

Defendant’s objection is sustained. This request requires Defendant Alade to go beyond his 

treatment of Plaintiff and opine as to Plaintiff’s subsequent treatment by other health care providers. 

RFA Number 14

Request

Please admit taht [sic] if the plaintiffs [sic] condition now was the same as it was on April 22, 2011 

when you recommended the knee manipulation procedure or if it was worse, the plaintiff would be 

permanently handicap [sic] or his mobility would be impaired.

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request is vague and ambiguous, 

compound, an incomplete hypothetical, calls for speculation, and calls for expert witness testimony.

Analysis

Defendant’s objections are overruled. Although Plaintiff’s question could be better expressed, the 

intent of his question is clear. Plaintiff is asking Defendant Alade if Plaintiff’s condition, as Defendant 

Alade knew it to be on April 22, 2011, would cause a permanent handicap or a mobility impairment. The 

question does not call for speculation or expert testimony, and only requires Defendant Alade’s opinion 

based on his treatment of Plaintiff on April 22, 2011. The Court notes, however, that in Plaintiff’s First 

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 7 of 15
8

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

27

28

Amended Complaint, he alleges that Defendant Alade recommended the procedure on March 30, 2011 

(ECF No. 10, at 15). Defendant Alade may therefore not have sufficient knowledge of Plaintiff’s 

condition on April 22, 2011, but this does not negate the need for a proper response. 

Therefore, Defendant’s response is insufficient and he is ordered to provide a response.

RFA Number 18

Request

Please admit that if the plaintiff had not used a wheelchair or had not been allowed to use the 

wheelchair following the January 18, 2011 surgery, the plaintiff could have re-injured his knee.

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request is vague and ambiguous, 

an incomplete hypothetical, calls for speculation, and calls for expert testimony.

Analysis

Defendant’s objections are well taken and Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

RFA Number 19

Request

Please admit that in not using a wheelchair, it could have contributed to the plaintiff sweating 

more into his wound and the development of a staph infection.

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request is an incomplete 

hypothetical, calls for speculation, and calls for expert testimony.

Analysis

Defendant’s objections are well taken and Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

RFA Number 20

Request

Please admit that if the plaintiff did not maintain his dressing clean and dry or if the plaintiff was 

not allowed to maintain his dressing clean and dry, that the dirty and wet bandage could have contributed 

to the development of a staph infection.

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 8 of 15
9

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

27

28

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request is vague and ambiguous, 

compound, an incomplete hypothetical, calls for speculation, and calls for expert testimony.

Analysis

Defendant’s objections are well taken and Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

RFA Number 21

Request

Please admit that a minimum, the bandage following arthroscopic Knee [sic] surgery should be 

changed daily, every two days, as often as it is needed even if that’s more than once a day.

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request is vague and ambiguous, 

compound, an incomplete hypothetical, calls for speculation, and calls for expert testimony.

Analysis

Defendant’s objections are without merit. Defendant’s response is insufficient and he is 

ordered to provide a response as the request pertains to his treatment of Plaintiff on or after January 

18, 2011.

RFA Number 22

Request

Please admit that when you performed surgery on plaintiff’s knee on January 18, 2011 and again 

on February 11, 2011, the plaintiff had a serious medical need.

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request is vague and ambiguous, 

compound, and calls for expert testimony.

Analysis

While the Court does not necessarily agree with Defendant’s objections, the request does ask 

Defendant Alade to make a legal conclusion. The request is also somewhat irrelevant, as there appears to 

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 9 of 15
10

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

27

28

be no dispute that at the time Defendant Alade performed the surgeries, Plaintiff had a serious medical 

need. Accordingly, Defendant need not provide a response.

RFA Number 23

Request

Please admit that when you recommended plaintiff for the knee manipulation procedure, the 

plaintiff had a serious medical need.

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request is vague and ambiguous

and calls for expert testimony.

Analysis

Again, while the Court does not necessarily agree with Defendant’s objections, the request 

does ask Defendant Alade to make a legal conclusion. The request is also somewhat irrelevant, as 

there appears to be no dispute that at the time Defendant Alade recommended knee manipulation, 

Plaintiff had a serious medical need. Accordingly, Defendant need not provide a response.

RFA Number 24

Request

Please admit that if the allegations plaintiff has made in his FAC against the other defendants are 

true, that the prisons [sic] medical staff violated the proper standard of medical care to which plaintiff was 

entitled.

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request is vague and ambiguous, an 

incomplete hypothetical, calls for speculation, and calls for expert testimony.

Analysis

Defendant’s objection is sustained insofar as he contends that this response requires expert 

testimony. This request requires Defendant Alade to go beyond his treatment of Plaintiff and opine as to 

Plaintiff’s subsequent treatment by other health care providers. Defendant does not need to provide a 

response. 

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 10 of 15
11

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

27

28

RFA Number 25

Request

Please admit that during the plaintiffs [sic] recovery time following the two surgeries of his left 

knee, the plaintiff had a serious medical need.

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request is vague and ambiguous, 

an incomplete hypothetical, calls for speculation, and calls for expert testimony.

Analysis

Again, while the Court does not necessarily agree with Defendant’s objections, the request does 

ask Defendant Alade to make a legal conclusion. The request is also somewhat irrelevant, as there appears 

to be no dispute that at the time Defendant Alade performed the surgeries, Plaintiff had a serious medical 

need. Accordingly, Defendant need not provide a response.

RFA Number 29

Request

Please admit if the plaintiff was not changing his wet and dirty bandage or if the plaintiff was 

not being allowed to change his wet and dirty bandage, that would be a violation of your medical 

orders to keep dressing clean and dry.

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request is vague and ambiguous, 

compound, an incomplete hypothetical, overbroad, assumes facts not in evidence, calls for 

speculation, and calls for expert testimony.

Analysis

Defendant’s objections are without merit. While Plaintiff’s request does not specifically state 

the time frame at issue, the context of the question indicates that Plaintiff is referring to the period 

after the first surgery, on January 18, 2011. Defendant Alade has knowledge of his treatment of 

Plaintiff during that time period, and any opinion given will not require expert testimony. This is 

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 11 of 15
12

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

27

28

especially true given Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Alade ordered that his bandages be kept 

clean and dry.

Insofar as Defendant states that the request assumes facts not in evidence, his objection is 

overruled. “Assuming facts not in evidence may be the basis for an objection during trial or some 

other evidentiary hearing. This, however, is discovery.” Garcia v. Clark, 2012 WL 1232315, at *2 

(E.D.Cal. 2012).

Therefore, Defendant’s response is insufficient and he is ordered to provide a response as the 

request pertains to his treatment of Plaintiff on or after January 18, 2011.

RFA Number 30

Request

Please admit that the failure to change a wet and dirty bandage over an incision where a stitch 

has been pulled out could have contributed to the development of a staph infection for plaintiff or any 

patient.

Response

Objection: Responding party objects on the grounds that this request is vague and ambiguous,

an incomplete hypothetical, assumes facts not in evidence, calls for speculation, and calls for expert 

testimony.

Analysis

Defendant’s objections are well taken, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

RFA Number 36

Request

Please admit that the order referenced in #35 above means that if the bandage becomes dirty or 

wet, the bandage is to be changed.

Response

Objection: This request is vague and ambiguous and calls for speculation and premature expert 

witness opinion. Subject to and without waiving said objections, responding party responds: 

Responding party’s order was for the patient’s dressing to be kept clean and dry.

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 12 of 15
13

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

27

28

Analysis

Plaintiff states that he is seeking clarification of Defendant Alade’s order after the January 18, 

2011, surgery. Plaintiff believes that the order itself is vague.

Defendant’s objections are overruled. The request is not vague or ambiguous, nor does it call 

for expert testimony, as it refers to a specific order written by Defendant Alade. Defendant’s response 

is therefore insufficient and he is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

RFA Number 37

Request

Please admit that as the treating Physician [sic] for the plaintiffs [sic] left knee surgery on January 

18, 2011 that you would have wanted to be notified if the plaintiffs [sic] knee was still draining ten days 

after your surgery on him.

Response

Objection: This Request is vague and ambiguous, calls for speculation, constitutes an 

incomplete hypothetical, assumes facts not in evidence, and prematurely seeks expert witness opinion.

Analysis

Defendant’s objections are overruled. The response is not vague or ambiguous, nor does it call 

for expert testimony, as it refers to a Defendant Alade’s treatment of Plaintiff after the January 18, 

2011, surgery. Defendant’s response is therefore insufficient and he is ordered to provide a 

supplemental response.

RFA Number 38

Request

Please admit that as the treating Physician [sic] for the plaintiffs [sic] left knee surgery, you 

would have been concerned if you had been made aware that the knee was still draining ten days after 

surgery.

Response

Objection: This Request is vague and ambiguous, calls for speculation, constitutes an 

incomplete hypothetical, assumes facts not in evidence, and prematurely seeks expert witness opinion.

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 13 of 15
14

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

27

28

Analysis

Defendant’s objections are overruled for the same reasons discussed in the analysis of RFA 37. 

Defendant’s response is therefore insufficient and he is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

RFA Number 39

Request

Please admit that as the treating Physician/surgeon on plaintiffs [sic] left knee that your 

“Physician’s order to “Keep dressing clean and dry” meant for the plaintiff to change or have his bandage 

changed anytime it was dirty or wet.

Response

Objection: This request is vague and ambiguous, calls for speculation, and prematurely seeks 

expert witness opinion.

Analysis

Regardless of Defendant’s objections, this request is duplicative of RFA 36. Defendant need 

not provide a response.

RFA Number 40

Request

Please admit that when you wrote your operation report for the surgery you did on plaintiffs 

left knee on February 11, 2011 that in your operation report, you indicated and/or stated that the 

plaintiff had received “poor wound care.”

Response

Objection: This Request is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving said 

objections, responding party responds: Responding party admits that the following sentence is found 

within the Operative Report for the February 11, 2011 procedure: ‘Patient is post knee arthroscopic 

surgery who had poor wound care[.]’ Responding party did not specify or state that the patient 

“received” poor wound care as phrased in the call of the question.

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 14 of 15
15

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

27

28

Analysis

Defendant has provided a sufficient response. Plaintiff’s request is aimed at whether 

Defendant Alade used the term “poor wound care” in his report. Whether Plaintiff “had” or 

“received” poor wound care is irrelevant. 

ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to determine the sufficiency of Defendant Alade’s responses to Requests for 

Admission is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. Defendant Alade SHALL provide 

responses within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 11, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 157 Filed 11/12/14 Page 15 of 15