Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01661/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01661-5/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

27

28

1 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS BOVARIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor;

PRIVATE HEALTH CARE COMPANY,

“Company X”; MATTHEW CATES,

Secretary of Corrections; JAMES E.

TILTON, Former Secretary of Corrections;

MICHAEL SMELOSKY, Warden, Centinela

State Prison; V.M. ALMAGER, Former

Warden, Centinela Prison; G.J. GIURBINO,

Former Warden, Centinela Prison; N.

BARRERAS, M.D., L. CALDERON, Health

Care Manager, Centinela Prison; D.

KHATRI, M.D., SUMMER AYMAR, D.O.;

MANAIG, R.N.; J. ROBINSON, R.N.;

CANDI COOK, Medical Appeals Analyst;

TETTEH, M.D.; KO, M.D.; HODGE, N.P.;

C. HAMMOND, Staff Services Manager I;

NAVAMANI, M.D.; Does 1-20,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

COMPEL PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

[Doc. No. 83]

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 1 of 19
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

2 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

I. INTRODUCTION

Marcus Bovarie (Plaintiff), a California prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action complaining of deliberate indifference to his medical needs. 

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery from various Defendants. [Docket No. 83.] 

On February 8, 2011, Defendants filed a timely Opposition to the Motion to Compel Discovery. 

[Docket No. 86.] Having considered the arguments of both sides, It Is Hereby Ordered that the Motion

to Compel Discovery is Granted in Part and Denied in Part as follows.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel Documents from Defendant Navamani

At all relevant times, Defendant Navamani was employed as a medical doctor at Centinela

Prison. First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶ 30. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Navamani examined him

on January 25, 2008 in relation to Plaintiff's complaints of kidney and liver pain accompanied by fatigue

and weakness. FAC ¶ 54. After examining Plaintiff, Defendant Navamani ordered a computerized

tomography ("CT scan."). Id. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Navamani saw him again on March

5, 2008 and told him to wait for the CT scan. Id. at ¶ 55. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

Navamani saw him again on June 18, 2008, but merely stated that he would again order a CT scan. Id.

at ¶ 56. Based on these interactions, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Navamani was aware that Plaintiff

had a serious medical condition and purposely and deliberately denied Plaintiff adequate medical care,

with deliberate indifference to his needs. Id. at ¶ 169. 

1. Interrogatory Numbers 6-10 and Requests for Production Numbers 2-3

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Interrogatory Number six: “What, if any, facts

underlie each defense you have raised in response to the First-Amended Complaint?" Baxter Decl. at p.

2. Defendant Navamani objected on the basis that the request was "overly broad, unduly burdensome

because it calls upon the responding party to state every fact in support of numerous contentions

contained in a pleading" and that the request was compound, containing multiple subparts and exceeding

the allowable number of interrogatories under Civil Local Rule 33.1 and Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Id. 

The Court agrees that seeking every fact that underlies every affirmative defense is unduly

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 2 of 19
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

3 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

burdensome. See e.g. Mancini v. Insurance Corp. of New York, 2009 WL 1765295 at * 3 (S.D. Cal. Jun

18, 2009); Bashkin v. San Diego County, 2011 WL 109229 at * 2 (S.D. Cal. Jan 13, 2011); Miles v.

Shanghai Zhenhua Port of Machinery Co., LTS., 2009 WL 3837523 at * 1 (W.D. Wash. Nov 17, 2009).

Additionally, this interrogatory is compound and in violation of both Civil Local Rule 33.1 and

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. Civil Local Rule 33.1 states: "No party will serve on any other

party interrogatories which, including discrete subparts, number more than twenty-five interrogatories

without leave of court." Civ. L.R. 33.1(a). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a) states: "Unless

otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25

written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). 

Plaintiff argues that Interrogatory Number 6 is not compound merely because it "may prove

difficult or lead to a long answer." (Mtn at 6.) Plaintiff is correct that an interrogatory is not

objectionable merely because it may be difficult or require a long answer. Plaintiff is, however,

incorrect in his assertion that Interrogatory Number 6 is not compound. Plaintiff does not ask a single

question that requires a long answer. Instead, Plaintiff asks for facts about each of Defendants'

affirmative defenses. An interrogatory that seeks a response as to multiple affirmative defenses is

counted as a separate interrogatory for each affirmative defense. New Amsterdam Project Management

Humanitarian Foundation v. Laughrin 2009 WL 102816 at *5-6 ( N.D. Cal., January 14, 2009); White

v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 2005 WL 3881658 at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Mar 28, 2005); cf. Safeco of America v.

Rawston, 181 F.R.D. 441, 446 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (holding interrogatory that seeks facts about multiple

requests for admissions should be counted as a separate interrogatory for each request.). Plaintiff's First

Amended Complaint contains 179 paragraphs and Defendants' Answer contains 32 affirmative defenses. 

Docket Nos. 6, 61. Accordingly, this one interrogatory violates the limit on the number of

interrogatories that can be propounded and the Motion to Compel a further response is denied.

Interrogatory Number 7 seeks identification of all the documents that support the facts stated in

response to Interrogatory Number 6. As Interrogatory Number 6 is unduly burdensome and in excess of

the number of interrogatories allowed, the motion is denied as to Interrogatory Number 7. Request for

Production of Documents No. 2 sought all the documents identified in response to Interrogatory

Number 7. Because the motion is denied as to Interrogatory Number 7, the motion is also denied as to

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 3 of 19
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

4 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

Request for Production of Documents Number 2. 

Interrogatory Number 8 requests: "Please state your contentions as to any matter in the FirstAmended Complaint." Defendant Navamani objected again that the interrogatory was unduly

burdensome and compound such that it exceeded the numerical limit on interrogatories. Baxter Decl. at

p. 2. The interrogatory is even more burdensome than Interrogatory Number 6 and is equally in

violation of the numerical limit. Accordingly, the motion is denied as to Interrogatory Number 8.

Interrogatory Number 9 asks: "What, if any, facts support the contentions you stated in your

response to Interrogatory Number 8, above." Defendant again objected that the interrogatory was

unduly burdensome and compound. Baxter Decl. at p. 3. As Interrogatory Number 8 has been found

improper, the motion is denied as to Interrogatory Number 9.

Interrogatory Number 10 asks: "Please identify all documents you believe support the facts you

provided in your response to Interrogatory Number 9, above." Defendant objected again on the grounds

of burden and numerosity. As the motion has been denied as to Interrogatory Number 9, the motion is

also denied as to Interrogatory Number 10. Similarly, because Request for Production of Documents 

Number 3 seeks all the documents identified in response to Interrogatory Number 10, the motion is also

denied as to Request for Production of Documents Number 3. 

2. Interrogatory Numbers 17-19, Request for Production of Documents Number 4

Interrogatory Number 17 asks: “Please identify all documents that record, prescribe, order,

request or refer all CT scans you have ordered, while at Centinela State Prison, between the dates of

1/1/2004 and 1/1/2009." Baxter Decl at p. 3. Interrogatory Number 18 seeks identification of the

documents that show the dates each of the CT scans referenced in Interrogatory Number 17 were

actually provided. Request for Production of Documents Number 4 seeks all the documents identified

in response to Interrogatory Number 17. Interrogatory Number 19 seeks identification of the persons

responsible for providing CT scans once ordered by the doctor.

Defendant Navamani objected that the requests are unduly burdensome, that he is not the

custodian of the records sought, and that providing the information would violate the other inmates'

privacy rights. Additionally, Defendant argues that a party need not conduct extensive investigations or

research in order to respond to interrogatories. General Cigar Co., Inc. v. Cohiba Caribbean's Finest,

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 4 of 19
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

5 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

Inc., 2007 WL 983855 at * 3 (D. Nev., March 30, 2007). In deciding whether a request is unduly

burdensome, a court must balance the burden to the responding party against the benefit to the party

seeking the discovery. Thomas v. Cate, 715 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1032 (E.D. Cal. 2010).

In this case, Plaintiff needs to show that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious

medical needs. Plaintiff argues that the information sought is "very necessary and relevant to the instant

case as Plaintiff waited seven months in severe pain for a CT Scan." (Mtn at 8-9). Plaintiff does not,

however, explain how information relating to CT scans of other inmates is relevant to show that

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs. The facts and circumstances of

each inmate's medical condition is different and, therefore, the length of time a different patient in a

different situation waited for a CT scan would not be relevant to this case. 

Additionally, Defendant Navamani does not have direct access to the records. Plaintiff argues

that "it can be reasonably expected that Defendant Navamani could gain access to these records." (Mtn

at 8.) While it may be reasonable to expect such access, Defendant Navamani has no such access. The

California Code of Regulations defines access to prisoner's health records: 

No case records file, unit health records, or component thereof shall be released to any

agency or person outside the department, except for private attorneys hired to represent

the department, the office of the attorney general, the Board of Parole Hearings, the

Inspector General, and as provided by applicable federal and state law. Any outside

person or entity that receives case records files or unit health records is subject to all

legal and departmental standards for the integrity and confidentiality of those documents.

 Cal.Code Regs. tit.xv, § 3370(e). Accordingly, Defendant Navamani lacks access to the requested

documents. 

 This does not, however, end the inquiry. A party must not only produce documents and

information it possesses, it must produce all information within its custody or control. "A party may be

ordered to produce a document in the possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to

obtain the document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the document." Soto v. City

of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 619 (N.D. Cal. 1995). This includes documents under the control of the

party's attorney. Meeks v. Parsons, 2009 WL 3303718 (E.D. Cal. September 18, 2009)(involving a

subpoena to the CDCR); Axler v. Scientific Ecology Group, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 210, 212 (D. Mass.

2000)(A "party must produce otherwise discoverable documents that are in his attorneys' possession,

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 5 of 19
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

6 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

custody or control."); Gray v. Faulkner, 148 F.R.D. 220 (N.D. Ind. 1992)("Documents in the possession

of a party's attorney (in this case the Attorney General of Indiana) may be considered to be within the

control of the party for purposes of a Rule 34 production request. 10A Federal Procedure, Law Ed. §

26:380, p. 52 (1988).")

The Code of Regulations allows the Office of the Attorney General to obtain these records. The

Office of the Attorney General is counsel for all Defendants. Accordingly, the documents and

information sought are within the control of Defendants' attorney and therefore, within the control of

Defendants. As one court explained:

By virtue of their employment with non-party CDCR, individual defendants are

represented by the Attorney General's Office. It is this Court's experience that either

individual defendants who are employed by CDCR and/or the Attorney General can

generally obtain documents, such as the ones at issue here, from CDCR by requesting

them. If this is the case, then, based on their relationship with CDCR, they have

constructive control over the requested documents and the documents must be produced.

Woodall v. California, 2010 WL 4316953at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2010), citing Mitchell v. Adams,

2009 WL 674348 at *9 (E.D.Cal. Mar.6, 2009)(warden sued in individual capacity had constructive

control over documents he could obtain from the CDCR); see also Ochotorena v. Adams, 2010 WL

1035774, *3 (E.D.Cal. Mar 19, 2010); Moody v. Finander, 2010 WL 3911462 (S.D. Cal. October 1,

2010)(requiring individual defendants to respond to document request for records in the custody of

CDCR); Johnson v. Vord, 2008 WL 3892106 (E.D. Cal. August 21, 2008).

Defendants next object that the search through all the records would be unduly burdensome

because Defendant Navamani would have to look through five years of medical records of an unknown

number of inmates to determine whether a CT scan was ordered. Defense Counsel, Doug Baxter,

submitted a declaration stating that the short time frame allowed for opposition to this motion prevented

him from obtaining a declaration from the custodian of records at the CDCR. Baxter Decl. ¶ 13. 

Attorney Baxter states that he is familiar with the burden associated with records searches at prisons. 

Attorney Baxter estimates that hundreds of hours of work would be necessary to locate records of

inmates for whom CT scans were ordered. Baxter Decl. ¶ 15. 

In light of Plaintiff's failure to explain the relevance of the records sought, and the fact that

Defendant lacks direct access to the records, no detailed account of the burden of identifying the records

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 6 of 19
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

7 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

is needed at this time and the Motion to Compel is denied as to Interrogatory Numbers 17-19. 

3. Interrogatory Number 23 and Request for Production Number 5

Interrogatory Number 23 asks: "“Please list by log number all inmate appeals of a medical nature

that have been filed by inmates of the California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation in regard to

your actions or inaction.” Request for Production of Documents Number 5 seeks the documents

identified in response to Interrogatory Number 23. Defendant objected that the request was unduly

burdensome, he is not the custodian of records, and divulging the information sought would violate the

inmates' right to privacy. Baxter Decl. at 4. 

As discussed above, Defendant does have sufficient control over the documents and information. 

The objection as to privacy is more complicated. Plaintiff dismisses the objection, claiming that he

would not use the documents for any purpose other than to show a pattern of deliberate indifference on

the part of Defendant Navamani. This argument does not adequately address the privacy concerns of

other inmates who may have filed appeals against Defendant Navamani. In order to determine whether

the privacy rights outweigh the need for the information courts in the Ninth Circuit examine and balance

the five factors set forth in Pagano v. Oroville Hospital, 145 F.R.D. 683, 695-98 (E.D. Cal. 1993):

(1) the probable encroachment of the individual's privacy right . . . and the magnitude of

the encroachment; (2) whether the encroachment of the privacy right would impact an

area that has traditionally been off limits for most regulation; (3) whether the desired

information is available from other sources with less encroachment of the privacy right;

(4) the extent to which the exercise of the individual's privacy rights impinge on the

rights of others; and (5) whether the interests of society at large encourage a need for the

proposed encroachment.

Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 618 (N.D. Cal. 1995)(citing Pagano v. Oroville Hospital, 145

F.R.D. 683, 695-98 (E.D. Cal. 1993).

In this case, the encroachment is severe, as revealing the appeals would necessarily reveal

medical information, an area generally off limits. Plaintiff claims that he will not use the information

for any other purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. Plaintiff cannot, however, dispute the fact

that he is seeking access to many inmates' private medical records. Moreover, Plaintiff's rights will not

be adversely affected as Plaintiff has not demonstrated any relevance for the records sought. Plaintiff

must prove that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need. The medical

records of other inmates will not shed any light on the question in this litigation. Valenzuela v. Smith,

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 7 of 19
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

8 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

2006 WL 403842 (E.D. Cal. Feb 16, 2006)(rejecting argument that all complaints against defendants

while employed by CDC were relevant to show a pattern of deliberate indifference to medical needs of

prisoners); Johnson v. Vord, 2008 WL 3892106 (E.D. Cal August 21, 2008)(denying production where

plaintiff made no showing of relevance and request was overly broad as to time frame and type of

medical treatment); Holestine v. Terhune, 2003 WL 23281594, * 10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2003)(denying

production of appeals of other inmates.); Garrett v. Walker, 2007 WL 3342522 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9,

2007)(finding burden outweighed relevance for all appeals of deliberate indifference to inmate health

and safety); Blue v. Grannis, 2007 WL 2758025 (E. D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2007)(denying motion to compel

all grievances against defendant because "evidence of prior accusations against defendant do not bear on

any material issue in this matter.") Finally, it would not be in the societal interest to allow dissemination

of private medical records that are not relevant to the lawsuit.

In light of the serious and weighty privacy concerns, as well as the failure of Plaintiff to assert

any relevance for the documents sought, the Motion to Compel is denied as to Interrogatory Number 23

and Request for Production of Documents 5. 

4. Requests for Admission

The goal of Requests for Admission is to eliminate from the trial issues as to which there is no

genuine dispute and, therefore, Requests for Admissions are not intended to be used as means of

gathering evidence. Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 2578277

(N.D. Cal. Sep. 06, 2006)("the propriety of using requests for admission to gather information about

discovery is questionable, at best."), objections overruled by Google Inc. v. American Blind &

Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 3050866 (N.D. Cal. Oct 23, 2006); see also Woodall v. California,

2010 WL 4316953 at *3 (E.D. Cal. October 22, 2010)("requests for admissions are not principally

discovery devices and should not be used as a substitute for other discovery processes to uncover

evidence."). Accordingly, requests for admissions "are required to be simple and direct, and should be

limited to singular relevant facts." Id. at 446 (citation omitted); see also U.S. ex rel. Englund v. Los

Angeles County, 235 F.R.D. 675, 684 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ("Requests for admissions may not contain

compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive (e.g., 'and/or') statements."); Williams v. Adams, 2009 WL

1220311 at *10-11 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2009) (denying motion to compel responses to compound requests

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 8 of 19
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

9 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

for admission.) 

a. Requests for Admission Numbers 6-9, 11, 14-15

Plaintiff propounded Requests for Admission ("RFAs") asking Defendant to admit that "It is not

within the Medical Standard of the Medical professional community in California": 1) "when a Medical

doctor disregards a patient’s long term, persistant [sic], regular, severe pain." (RFA 6); 2) "for a medical

doctor to allow their patient to needlessly suffer pain" (RFA 7); 3) "for a medical doctor to disregard a

known risk to their patient’s health." (RFA 8); 3) "for a medical doctor, who is diagnosing their patient,

to disregard specific descriptions by said patient, of location and level of pain" (RFA 9). Plaintiff also

sought admissions that: 1) "Inmates of the California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation did not

receive the same level of medical care as the rest of the (Free) society of California in 2007 and 2008.” 

(RFA 11); 2) "A higher standard of medical care is required by the medical standard of the medical

professional community in California than the right to adequate medical care for prisoners established

by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." (RFA 14); and 3) "It is much more

difficult for a medical professional in California to violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and

unusual punishment than it is to violate the medical standard of the medical professional community.

(RFA 15). 

Defendant objected to these Requests for Admission, claiming they improperly seek pure

conclusions of law. Requests for Admissions may not be used to compel an admission of a conclusion

of law. Trustees of Eighth Dist. Elec. Pension Fund v. Craft Elec. Co.,2010 WL 1410578 ( D.Idaho,

March 31, 2010), quoting Playboy v. Welles, 60 F.Supp.2d 1050, 1057 (S.D.Cal.1999); see also

Rodriguez v. U.S., 2008 WL 5381240 at *2 (S.D.Cal. Dec 22, 2008). Accordingly, the Motion to

Compel is denied as to Requests for Admission Numbers 6-9, 11, 14-15.

b. Requests for Admission Number 10 

Plaintiff also asked Defendant to admit: “If a patient experiencing long term, persistant [sic],

regular, severe pain does not receive medical treatment for their pain, their pain can be reasonably

expected to continue." (RFA 10). Defendant objected that Request Number 10 poses an incomplete

hypothetical. Requests for Admission are improper where the Request contains an incomplete

hypothetical. Friedman v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 2010 WL 4009660 (S. D. Cal. October 13, 2010.) 

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 9 of 19
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

10 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is denied as to Requests for Admission Number 10. 

c. Requests for Admission Number 12

Plaintiff asks Defendant to admit "A Federal Reciever [sic] was placed in charge of medical care

within the California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation due to the finding, by a Federal Court, that

inmates of the California Dept. of Corrections were not provided adequate medical care." (RFA 12.)

Defendant objected to this Requests for Admission, asserting it called for a conclusion of law

and is compound. Defendant is correct on both counts and the Motion to Compel is denied as to

Request for Admission Number 12. 

B. Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Khatri

On August 1, 2007, Defendant Khatri, a medical doctor at Centinela prison, examined Plaintiff

and ordered a blood test. (FAC at ¶¶42-43.) Plaintiff's blood was drawn and tested and Plaintiff

received the results of the tests. (FAC ¶ 44.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant Khatri was deliberately

indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical need. 

1. Interrogatory Numbers 6-10 and Request for Production of Documents Number 2 

Interrogatory Numbers 6-10 and Request for Production of Documents Number 2 propounded

upon Defendant Khatri are the same as those propounded on Defendant Navamani. For the reasons

described above, the motion is denied as to these Interrogatory Numbers and Request for Production of

Documents.

2. Interrogatory Numbers 16 and 20

Interrogatory Number 16 asks: "“Please explain how the location of a patient’s pain is important

to the determination of an accurate diagnosis.” Interrogatory Number 20 asks: "If a patient has been

experiencing regular, peristant [sic], severe pain, can that patient’s pain reasonably be expected to

continue without treatment." Defendant Khatri objected that these interrogatories are vague and

ambiguous and unduly burdensome in that they call for an opinion without sufficient foundational facts. 

Baxter Decl. at pp 10-11. 

An interrogatory that is otherwise proper is not rendered improper merely because it calls for an

opinion. Rule 33 provides: 

An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 10 of 19
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

11 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the court may order that the

interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until a

pretrial conference or some other time. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). When an interrogatory calls for a factual opinion, however, it must relate to the

facts of the case. See Kinnee v. Shack, Inc. 2008 WL 1995458 at *2 (D. Or. May 6, 2008); McClain v.

Mack Trucks, Inc., 85 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D.Pa.1979)(interrogatory calling for an opinion "must be

phrased with particularity."). cf Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 1970 advisory committee's note ("On the other hand

. . . interrogatories may not extend to issues of 'pure law,' i.e., legal issues unrelated to the facts of the

case.)

Interrogatory Numbers 16 and 20 seek opinions that are not tied to the particular facts of this

case. As such they are improper and the Motion to Compel is denied as to these interrogatories. 

3. Interrogatory Number 25 and Request for Production of Documents Number 5

Interrogatory Number 25 and Request for Production of Documents Number 5 propounded upon

Defendant Khatri seek all inmate appeals of a medical nature filed against Defendant Khatri. These

requests are identical to Interrogatory Number 23 and Request for Production of Documents Number 5

propounded on Defendant Navamani. For the reasons discussed above, the Motion to Compel is denied

as to Interrogatory Number 25 and Request for Production of Documents Number 5. 

4. Requests for Admission Number 4

Plaintiff asks Defendant Khatri to admit: "Inmate appeals have the following levels: 1) informal;

2) formal; 3) second level; and, 4) Director’s level (or third level)." Defendant Khatri objected that the

request seeks a pure conclusion of law, divorced from the facts of this case. Baxter Decl. p. 13. The

Court need not determine whether this Request for Admission presents a pure question of law, however,

because it is not tied the facts of this case and not relevant to any issue presented in the case. 

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is Denied as to Request for Admission Number 4. 

5. Request for Admission Number 7

Plaintiff asks Defendant Khatri to admit; "An inmate appeal that seeks medical care is, in effect,

a request for medical care." Defendant objected that the request is vague and ambiguous and, to the

extent it seeks the legal effect of an appeal, seeks an opinion on a pure question of law. Defendant then

responded that some inmates might view an appeal as a request for medical care. Baxter Decl. at pp 13-

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 11 of 19
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

12 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

14. Plaintiff argues that Defendant is a prison doctor and, therefore, qualified to answer this question. 

To the extent that Plaintiff sought Defendant Khatri's opinion, Defendant has answered this request

appropriately. To the extent that the request sought the legal import of an appeal, it improperly seeks a

pure legal conclusion. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is denied as to Request for Admission 

Number 7.

C. Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Calderon

Defendant Calderon was the Acting Health Care Manager of Centinela during the relevant time

period. (FAC ¶ 16.) Defendant Calderon read and approved the second level response to Plaintiff's first

grievance (Log Number CEN-07-00778.) (FAC ¶ 81, Ex. A.) Based on this action, Plaintiff claims` that

Defendant Calderon was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. 

1. Interrogatory Numbers 6-10 and Request for Production of Documents Number 2 

Interrogatory Numbers 6-10 and Request for Production of Documents Number 2 propounded

upon Defendant Calderon are the same as those propounded on Defendant Navamani. For the reasons

described above, the motion is denied as to these Interrogatory Numbers and Request for Production of

Documents.

2. Interrogatory Number 3 and Request for Production of Documents Number 1

Interrogatory Number 1 asked whether Defendant Calderon was ever deliberately indifferent to

Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Defendant Calderon responded that, as Acting Health Care Manager,

he is not a medical professional and did not provide any medical care; that he was never aware that

Plaintiff had a serious medical condition; and was not aware of any facts leading him to believe Plaintiff

needed additional medical care. Defendant Calderon continued: "To the extent I had any involvement in

the review (in connection with reading and approving a response to a 602 appeal) of the medical care

that Plaintiff was receiving, I always relied in good faith on the medical opinions and recommendations

of the trained medical professionals." (emphasis added.) Interrogatory Number 3 seeks identification of

all documents Defendant Calderon believes support his answer to Interrogatory Number 1. Request for

Production of Documents Number 1 seeks all the documents identified in response to Interrogatory

Number 3. Defendant Calderon responded "Not applicable" to both requests. Baxter Decl at pp. 14,18. 

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses, arguing that Defendant Calderon answered "no" to

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 12 of 19
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

13 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

Interrogatory Number 1 and admitted involvement in Plaintiff's medical care, by admitting he reviewed

the appeal related to the medical care. Defendant Calderon argues that he has fully answered the

question, he was not involved in Plaintiff's care and cannot produce documents to prove his lack of

involvement. Defendant Calderon, however, offers to amend his response to state that all of Plaintiff's

medical records which were relied upon by the health care providers and appeal responders are

responsive. With that amendment, Defendant Calderon has adequately responded to these requests. 

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is Granted as to Interrogatory Number 3 and Granted as to Request

for Production of Documents Number 1. As described above, Defense counsel from the Attorney

General's office has access to Plaintiff's medical records. Defense counsel is specifically ordered to

produce to Plaintiff a complete set of his medical records and all responses to his appeal.

3. Interrogatory Numbers 13-18, Request for Production of Documents Number 4

The Interrogatories and responses are as follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. AND TEXT DEFENDANT CALDERON’S RESPONSE 

13. Did you respond to the inmate appeal (for

purposes of theses interrogatories, “the inmate

appeal” refers to the inmate appeal filed by

Plaintiff on 06/21/07, Log No. CEN-D-07-00778

regarding medical care for which a second level

response was issued dated 10/12/07)?

 13. With respect to the inmate appeal under log

number CEN-D-07-00778, I cannot presently

confirm whether this appeal was actually filed by

Plaintiff on June 21, 2007 (assuming that term is

used in the plain sense of the date on which a

document is submitted to someone for review). 

Regardless, as Acting HCM, my responsibilities

included the review and approval of health care

responses at the Second Formal Level. I did not

prepare responses or respond to appeal

CEN-D-07-00778. At that time, the Health Care

Appeals Analyst reviewed medical files,

consulted with health care staff, interviewed

inmates (when appropriate) and “prepared” the

appeal responses at three institutional levels

(informal, first, and second). 

14. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 13,

above, was yes, is there an accurate

representation of your responce [sic] to the

inmate appeal contained within Exhibit A to the

First Amended Complaint at Document 6-1, page

4 of 52? 

14. Not applicable. 

15. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 13,

above, was yes, please identify all documents you

believe support your responce [sic] to the inmate

appeal. 

15. Not applicable. 

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 13 of 19
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

14 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

16. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 13,

above, was yes, did you conduct any interviews

in the process of developing and issuing your

responce [sic] to the inmate appeal? 

16. Not applicable. 

17. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 16,

above, was yes, please provide the full names and

positions of all persons you interviewed. 

17. Not applicable. 

18. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 13,

above, was yes, could you have recommended

medical care or diagnostics for Plaintiff if you

found a need for medical care or diagnostics

indicated for Plaintiff? 

18. Not applicable. 

This dispute appears to center on the meaning of "respond" in the context of an inmate appeal. 

Defendant Calderon answered that he reviewed and approved the response, but he did not respond to the

appeal. In short, Defendant Calderon asserts that he did not "respond" to the appeal because he did not

prepare the response. Plaintiff views the matter differently. According to Plaintiff, the clear and usual

meaning of the word "respond" includes reviewing and approving the response. Plaintiff reasons that, 

because the Calderon's approval was necessary for the response to issue, Defendant Calderon responded

to the appeal. 

The facts are not in dispute. Defendant Calderon did not prepare the response, but he did review

and approve the response. Interrogatory Number 13 asks Defendant Calderon "did you respond" to the

appeal. Defendant Calderon provided a clear response indicating his involvement in the response. 

Because Defendant Calderon admits he reviewed and approved the response, he should have responded

to Interrogatory Numbers 14-18 instead of stating "Not Applicable." Accordingly, the Motion to

Compel is Granted as to Interrogatory Numbers 14-18. Request for Production of Documents Number 4

seeks all documents identified in response to Interrogatory Number 15. Because the Motion is Granted

as to Interrogatory Number 15, the Motion is also Granted as to Request for Production of Documents

Number 4. 

4. Interrogatory Number 21 and Request for Production of Documents Number 5

Interrogatory Number 21 asks: " Please identify all documents that proclaim, describe, list, or

define all rules or regulations that pertain to inmate appeals of a medical nature in place in October of

2007." Request for Production of Documents Number 5 sought all documents identified in response to

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 14 of 19
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

15 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

Interrogatory Number 21. Defendant Calderon objected that the request is vague and ambiguous as to

whether it seeks all documents in the CDCR and whether it seeks an analysis of all possible sources of

law and rules on the subject of inmate appeals. Defendant Calderon also objected that the interrogatory

is unduly burdensome because it would require "inordinate time periods of research" and because the

interrogatory calls for a pure conclusion of law. Baxter Decl. p. 17. 

In this motion, Plaintiff agrees to limit his request to rules in effect in October of 2007. 

Defendant Calderon responds that the request is still unduly burdensome because it applies to the entire

CDCR system and different prisons have different regulations. Defendant again asserts the workproduct immunity, claiming the interrogatory requires Defendant to identify sources of law. Plaintiff

argues that Defendant Calderon could not review and approve responses without being aware of the

applicable rules.

At the heart of this problem is Plaintiff's need to understand the rules and regulations that were in

effect at Centinela at the time of his medical appeals in 2007 and 2008. The Court is sensitive to the

burden of having to identify every document that might describe a rule or regulation in effect. The

Court is also unwilling to invade the work-product immunity and require Defendant to reveal research

done by his attorney in the course of representation. Balancing the interests, the Motion to Compel is

Granted as to Interrogatory Number 21 as revised: Identify all rules or regulations that pertained to the

inmate appeals at issue in this case and any documents defining the rules or regulations which you were

aware of at the time you reviewed and approved the response to my appeal. The Motion to compel is

also Granted as to Request for Production of Documents Number 5. 

5. Interrogatory Number 22 and Request for Production of Documents Number 6

Interrogatory Number 22 seeks: "all documents that define the duties of Health Care Manager of

Centinela State." Defendant objected that the request was vague and ambiguous as to time and

responded that no such documents were available. Request for Production of Documents Number 6

seeks all documents identified in response to Interrogatory Number 22. Defendant Calderon responded

that he is unaware of any such documents. In the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff argues that a prison surely

has a document defining the duties of the health care manager. Defendant Calderon merely asserts that

he has responded fully.

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 15 of 19
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

16 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

The court has no reason to doubt Defendant Calderon's statement that he is unaware of any such

documents. Nonetheless, it is highly likely that at least one such document exists and Defendant

Calderon does not describe the reasonable efforts he has made to locate responsive documents. 

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is Granted as to Interrogatory Number 22 and Document Request

Number 6. If Defendant Calderon cannot describe and produce any responsive documents, he shall

provide the court with a declaration under penalty of perjury describing the reasonable efforts he and his

counsel undertook to locate responsive documents. 

D. Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Barreras

Defendant Barreras was Chief Medical Officer at Centinela during part of the relevant time

period. FAC ¶ 13. Plaintiff filed his second appeal (Log number CEN 07-1386) relating to his medical

care. FAC ¶¶ 92. Defendant Barreras completed the second level response, which denied the appeal. 

FAC ¶ 93. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Barerras was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious

medical need. 

1. Interrogatory Number 6

Interrogatory Number 6 seeks the facts underlying each defense raised in response to the FAC. 

For the reasons described above in relation to Defendant Navamani, the Motion to Compel is Denied as

to this Interrogatory.

2. Interrogatory Number 7

Interrogatory Number 7 asks: "If a limited diagnostic tool/test showed negative or inconclusive

results for a patient but that patient was still in pain what should be done?" Defendant Barreras objected

that the Interrogatory Number 7 is vague and ambiguous because it calls for an opinion without

sufficient facts, does not define "limited diagnostic tool/test", or explain any details of the patient's

condition. Baxter Decl. at p. 20. 

This interrogatory is similar to Interrogatory Numbers16 and 20 propounded on Defendant

Khatri. Because this interrogatory seeks an opinion based on an incomplete hypothetical and is

unrelated to the facts of this case, it is improper. Kinnee v. Shack, Inc. 2008 WL 1995458 at *2 (D. Or.

May 6, 2008); McClain v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 85 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D. Pa.1979)(interrogatory calling for

an opinion "must be phrased with particularity." Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is Denied as to

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 16 of 19
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

17 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

Interrogatory Number 7.

//

3. Interrogatory Number 12

Interrogatory Number 12 asks: "Please describe all medical care provided to Plaintiff between

the dates of 6/14/07 and 11/1/08 that you feel was inadequate." Defendant Barreras objected that this

Interrogatory is inherently vague and ambiguous because it calls for an opinion without sufficient

foundational facts. The Court cannot agree; the interrogatory is clear in seeking an opinion about a

specific set of facts: the care Plaintiff received between June of 2007 and October of 2008. 

Defendant Barreras next objects that the Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous due to failing to

define whether Plaintiff was seeking an opinion as to only care given by Defendant Barreras. The Court

cannot agree because the interrogatory asks about "all care" which is clear upon its face and means "all

care." Defendant Barreras also objects that the interrogatory is compound and contains discrete

subparts, causing the interrogatories to exceed the allowed number. The court disagrees. Plaintiff asks

a single question about the adequacy of his course of medical care and there are no discrete or

independent questions involved. See Trevino v. ACB American, inc. 232 F.R.D. 612 (N. D. Cal. 2006), 

Safeco of America v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D. Cal. 1998), Kendall v. GES Exposition

Services, 174 F.R.D. 684 (D. Nev.1997).

Defendant Barreras next objects that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because the term

"inadequate" is not defined. In the context of a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical need,

"inadequate" is not a term of art. See, e.g. Jackson v. McIntosh 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996)

(Deliberate indifference claim requires proof that the course of care was "medically unacceptable."). 

Thus, the interrogatory does not specify what standard is to be used to evaluate the adequacy of care. 

Defendant Barreras next objects that this interrogatory is unduly burdensome because it seeks

"conclusions and opinions about an unlimited and virtually infinite set of patient-specific medical

circumstances." Although the Court cannot agree that Patient's care for a 16 month period involving

fourteen medical visits is "virtually infinite," asking Defendant Barreras to review all care given in this

period is burdensome. As Defendant Barreras argues, the interrogatory seeks opinions about "multiple

discrete events of medical care over a prolonged period of time." 

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 17 of 19
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

18 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

Defendant's objections have some merit. Plaintiff is seeking an opinion as to the adequacy of

care given over 16 months during at least 14 medical visits. In light of the ambiguity of the word

"inadequate" in this context and the breadth of the opinions sought as to the adequacy of all of the care

received by Plaintiff, this interrogatory is unduly burdensome and the Motion to Compel is denied as to

Interrogatory Number 12. 

E. Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Manaig

Defendant Manaig is a Registered Nurse employed at Centinela. Plaintiff saw Defendant

Manaig on June 25, 2007. FAC ¶ 37. Defendant Manaig conducted a dipstick urinalysis and referred

Plaintiff for a mental health screening. FAC ¶¶ 39-40. Plaintiff again saw Defendant Manaig on

December 17, 2007, when Defendant Manaig scheduled Plaintiff for a visit with a doctor. FAC ¶¶ 52-

53. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Manaig was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical

need.

Plaintiff seeks to compel a further response to Request for Admission Number 2: " Regular,

persistant [sic], severe pain is a serious medical need." Defendant Manaig objected: "This request for

admission calls for a pure conclusion of law, divorced from any patient-specific or case-specific facts."

As discussed above in connection with the requests for admission propounded on Defendant Navamani,

Requests for Admissions may not be used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law. Trustees of

Eighth Dist. Elec. Pension Fund v. Craft Elec. Co.,2010 WL 1410578 ( D. Idaho, March 31, 2010),

quoting Playboy v. Welles, 60 F.Supp.2d 1050, 1057 (S.D.Cal.1999). Accordingly, the Motion to

Compel is Denied as to Defendant Manaig. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the It Is Hereby Ordered that:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery is Granted as to the following discovery

propounded on Defendant Calderon: 

a. Request for Production of Documents No. 1, limited to Plaintiff's 

medical record and appeal record and Interrogatory Number 3, as

Defendant Calderon offered to modify the response;

b. Interrogatory Numbers 14-18 and Request for Production of Documents

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 18 of 19
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

19 08cv1661 LAB (NLS)

Number 4;

c. Request for Production of Documents Number 5 and Interrogatory

Number 21 as revised: Identify all rules or regulations that pertained to

the inmate appeals at issue in this case and any documents defining the

rules or regulations which you were aware of at the time you reviewed and

approved the response to my appeal;

d. Interrogatory Number 22 and Request for Production of Documents 

Number 6;

2. The Motion is Denied in all other respects; and

3. Defendants shall provide the discovery required by this Order no later than

March 9, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 22, 2011

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-01661-LAB-NLS Document 89 Filed 02/22/11 Page 19 of 19