Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06624/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06624-15/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SY LEE CASTLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. K. SCRIBNER,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06624-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO COMPEL A

RESPONSE TO POD, SET ONE, NUMBER 18

(Doc. 78)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO

SERVE RESPONSE ON PLAINTIFF WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Sy Lee Castle (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 20, 2006, the court issued an order granting in

part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his requests for admission,

set two, and request for the production of documents, set one. (Doc. 70.) In relevant part, plaintiff

was granted thirty days to explain to the court why the document sought in request number eighteen

is relevant to his claim in this action. (Id., 6:1-10.) Plaintiff filed a response to the order on

December 12, 2006, and defendant Scribner (“defendant”) filed an opposition on December 26,

2006. (Docs. 78, 79, 82.)

POD 18: Plaintiff requests the CSP-Corcoran transportation list to the Acute Care Hospital

for May 21, 2003. Plaintiff argues that the document will show he had an appointment to see a

neurologist on May 21, 2003, due “to his spinal cord injury and being permanently mobility

impaired,” and will establish he has a medical problem. (Doc. 79, 2:21-23.) Defendant contends

that plaintiff’s request is frivolous because defendant has admitted that plaintiff had an appointment

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 87 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 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

2

at the Acute Care Hospital on May 21, 2003, and that plaintiff walked to the appointment.

Defendant contends that plaintiff need not produce any evidence that he had a medical appointment

or that he walked to the appointment.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and states in

pertinent part:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to

the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature,

custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things

and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable

matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the

subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible

at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. 

“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be

allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Oakes v.

Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Casualty

& Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D. N.J. 1990); see Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418,

429 (9th Cir. 1975) (parties opposing discovery are required to carry a heavy burden to show why

discovery should be denied). 

Defendant’s objection is only partially responsive to plaintiff’s request. Although it is

undisputed that plaintiff had a medical appointment on May 21, 2003, and walked to that

appointment, plaintiff also appears to be seeking this document as evidence that he was being seen

by neurologist for a spinal cord injury and permanent mobility impairment. Given that whether or

not plaintiff had a serious medical need which was known to and disregarded by defendant is at

issue, the court cannot conclude that this document is not discoverable. Therefore, defendant shall

produce the document, subject to redaction of other inmates’ names and identifying information.

The document sought by plaintiff may or may not contain the information he hopes it contains.

Plaintiff is cautioned that he must take the document as it is.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s supplemental motion to compel a response to document production request

number eighteen, set one, filed December 12, 2006, is GRANTED; and

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 87 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 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

3

2. Defendant has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to produce the

CSP-Corcoran transportation list to the Acute Care Hospital for May 21, 2003,

subject to redaction of information regarding inmates other than plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 87 Filed 02/01/07 Page 3 of 3