Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01302/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01302-6/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:16-cv-1302-CAB-NLS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICENTE ARRAIGA ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. S. KO, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-1302-CAB-NLS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL

[ECF No. 81]

On December 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel responses to various 

interrogatories propounded on Dr. Sangha, Dr. Ko, and Director J. Lewis. ECF No. 81. 

The Court reviewed the Plaintiff’s motion and found that responses submitted by Director 

Lewis were appropriate, and denied the Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses 

from Director Lewis. ECF No. 82. The Court also directed the parties to meet and 

confer regarding the contested interrogatory responses provided by Dr. Ko (No. 30-31), 

and the interrogatories that were unanswered by Dr. Ko (No. 5) and Dr. Sangha (Nos. 1-

4). Id. Following the meet and confer, Defendants were ordered to provide either a 

notice of resolution or opposition to the motion to compel. Id. 

///

///

Case 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS Document 85 Filed 01/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

3:16-cv-1302-CAB-NLS

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

I. Scope of Remaining Discovery Dispute

Consistent with the Court’s order, the Defendant submitted an Opposition to the 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel which includes notice of resolution of the two portions of the 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel directed to Dr. Ko’s responses: 

1. Defendants represent that receipt of Plaintiff’s motion revealed the inadvertent 

failure of Dr. Ko to respond to interrogatory 5, and that counsel obtained a 

verified response from Dr. Ko to this interrogatory, which was served on 

January 2, 2018 and numbered as 32. ECF No. 83 at 2. 

2. Pursuant to the Court’s order, the parties met and conferred on January 4, 2018, 

and Dr. Ko agreed to provide supplemental responses to interrogatories 30 and 

31. Id. Defendants represent that these supplemental responses were served on 

January 4, 2018. Id. at 3. 

In light of the representations set forth by Defendants regarding Dr. Ko, the Court 

DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from Dr. Ko. 

Defendants submit that only Dr. Sangha’s responses to interrogatories 1-4 remain 

in dispute. Id. The Court will address these interrogatories. 

II. Disputed Interrogatories Propounded to Dr. Sangha

Plaintiff initially propounded Interrogatories (Set Two) to Dr. Sangha on or about 

September 3, 2017. See ECF No. 67. A discovery dispute arose as a result of the 

interrogatories, and the Court directed the parties to meet and confer. ECF No. 68. The 

parties did so and were able to resolve the dispute without further Court intervention at 

that time. ECF Nos. 69, 70. In the document submitted to the Court explaining the 

resolution of the dispute, counsel for Defendants represented, in relevant part, that: 

The parties agreed that Defendants would respond to the second 

set of interrogatories (“Set Two”) propounded on Defendants as 

follows: ... all interrogatories except number 8 propounded on 

Dr. Ko, and interrogatories 5 and 6 propounded on Dr. Sangha.

ECF No. 69 at 2: 1-7. 

Case 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS Document 85 Filed 01/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

3:16-cv-1302-CAB-NLS

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 understood that Dr. Sangha was to respond to all interrogatories “except

number[s] 5 and 6.” ECF No. 81 at 2. Counsel for the Defendants understood the 

agreement to be that Dr. Sangha would respond to only interrogatories 5 and 6. ECF No. 

83 at 3-4; ECF No. 83-1. Counsel provides a declaration that recounts the meet and 

confer discussion with Plaintiff on November 1, 2017, including the reasons provided as 

to why Dr. Sangha could not respond to interrogatories 1-4. ECF No. 83-1 at ¶¶ 5-10. 

The agreement, or lack thereof, regarding which interrogatories Dr. Sangha agreed 

to respond to as presented to the Court is ambiguous. Both interpretations can be

supported by the language of the agreement submitted. Accordingly, the Court will 

address the Plaintiff’s motion to compel regarding these four interrogatories without 

reliance or reference to any agreement of the parties. 

III. Legal Standard

Rule 33 permits interrogatories on any topic within the scope of Rule 26. Rule 26 

permits inquiry into “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the 

issues at stake in the action, ... the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the 

parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues ....” 

The allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint towards Dr. Sangha are directed towards 

supervisory liability. “A defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 ‘if 

there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or 

(2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the 

constitutional violation.’” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207–08 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 

Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.1989)). “The requisite causal connection 

can be established ... by setting in motion a series of acts by others ... or by knowingly 

refusing to terminate a series of acts by others, which the supervisor knew or reasonably 

should have known would cause others to inflict a constitutional injury,” Id. (internal 

alterations omitted) (citing Dubner v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 968 

(9th Cir. 2001)). “A supervisor can be liable in his individual capacity for his own 

Case 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS Document 85 Filed 01/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

3:16-cv-1302-CAB-NLS

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

culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates; for 

his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation; or for conduct that showed a reckless 

or callous indifference to the rights of others.” Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 

1087, 1093 (9th Cir.1998) (internal alteration and quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff alleges Dr. Sangha is the “Chief Medical Executive...a properly trained 

and licensed medical doctor who is or was responsible for the medical care of all inmates 

at CSP-Centinela. This includes, but is not limited to, the supervision, direction, and[/]or 

proper training of the medical staff at CSP-Centinela, including Defendant Dr. Ko.” ECF 

No. 1 at ¶ 8. Plaintiff further alleges Dr. Sangha referred Plaintiff’s medical appeal 

interview to Dr. Ko, despite Plaintiff’s request to see another doctor due to his belief that 

Dr. Ko was deliberately indifferent to his pain. Id. at ¶ 55. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that 

Dr. Sangha failed to properly supervise Dr. Ko, and failed to act on information that 

indicated unconstitutional acts were occurring. Id. at ¶¶ 79, 95. 

IV. Interrogatories Propounded to Dr. Sangha

Interrogatory 1 states: 

If you contend that the Defendant Dr. S. Ko is not subordinate 

to you, please state 

(a) all facts upon which you base your contention; and 

(b) identify any statute, ordinance, rule or policy or regulation

that supports your contention. 

Plaintiff argues that response to this interrogatory is relevant to establish supervisory 

liability, and seeks to have Defendants identify any statute, ordinance, rule, or policy that 

Dr. Sangha intends to rely on that “shows Dr. Ko is not subordinate to [Dr. Sangha].” 

ECF No. 81 at 4. 

Defendants indicate that during the meet and confer, counsel explained that Dr. 

Sangha had already provided a verified supplemental response to a similar interrogatory,

which stated that Dr. Sangha “does not directly supervise licensed medical staff, such as 

Case 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS Document 85 Filed 01/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

3:16-cv-1302-CAB-NLS

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

Dr. Ko, that directly administer treatment.”

1 ECF No. 83 at 4; ECF No. 83-1 at ¶ 5. 

Defendant also argues that the question as phrased asks him to prove a negative. 

Notably, this interrogatory is identical to one propounded to Director Lewis, No. 

[SIC 27], to which Director Lewis provided a response and no argument was raised 

regarding proof of a negative. See ECF No. 81, Ex. D. 

The Court understands the information sought by the interrogatory, which is 

relevant and proportional to the Plaintiff’s claim that Dr. Sangha may be liable as a 

supervisor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The Court hereby ORDERS Defendants to provide a 

response. 

Interrogatory 2 states: 

If you contend your personal involvement in either of the 

Plaintiff’s CDC 602 Health Care Appeal Log #’s CEN HC 

15027248 and COR HC 1407207, please state:

(a) all facts and evidence upon which you base your contention. 

Defendants submit that during the meet and confer, counsel pointed out that this 

interrogatory was unintelligible as phrased. ECF No. 83 at 4. The Court agrees, this 

request appears to be missing critical language. No response to this interrogatory is 

required. 

Interrogatory 3 states: 

If you contend you are not responsible for the medical care of 

all inmates including but not limited to the supervision, 

direction, and[/] or proper training of the medical staff at CSP 

Centinela, please state 

(a) all facts and evidence upon which you base your contention; 

and 

(b) identify any statute, ordinance, or regulation that supports 

your contention. 

 

1 Neither the Interrogatories nor the Supplemental Responses were put before the Court 

for comparison. 

Case 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS Document 85 Filed 01/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

3:16-cv-1302-CAB-NLS

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 argues only that this interrogatory “appear[s] to be reasonably calculated to lead 

to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims.” ECF No. 81 at 

6. 

Defendants repeat their argument that like interrogatory 1, this interrogatory is 

asking to prove a negative and that Dr. Sangha previously responded to a similar 

interrogatory stating as a medical executive, Dr. Sangha “does not generally personally 

participate in day-to-day patient care within the institution.” ECF No. 83 at 4. 

As with interrogatory 1, the Court understands the information sought by the 

interrogatory, which is relevant and proportional to Plaintiff’s case, specifically, his 

claims for supervisory liability. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The Court hereby ORDERS

Defendants to provide a response to interrogatory 3. 

Interrogatory 4 states: 

If you contend that your job title does not require you to be 

aware and approve the medical treatment that inmates receive at 

CSP-Centinela, state 

(a) all facts upon which you base your contention; and 

(b) identify any statute, ordinance, or regulation that supports 

your contention. 

Plaintiff argues that this interrogatory is relevant to show Dr. Sangha’s awareness that Dr. 

Ko’s treatment plan was ineffective in alleviating Plaintiff’s complaints of chest pain. 

ECF No. 81 at 5. Defendant again argues this interrogatory asks Dr. Sangha to prove a 

negative by showing what Dr. Sangha’s job does not entail. ECF No. 83 at 5. 

The Court understands the information sought by the interrogatory, which is 

relevant and proportional to Plaintiff’s case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The Court hereby 

ORDERS Defendants to provide a response.

V. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED AS MOOT as to interrogatories 

propounded to Dr. Ko. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART as to 

interrogatories propounded to Dr. Sangha. Dr. Sangha must respond to interrogatories 1, 

Case 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS Document 85 Filed 01/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

3:16-cv-1302-CAB-NLS

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, and 4 by January 12, 2018. Plaintiff motion to compel as to interrogatory 2 to Dr. 

Sangha is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 9, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS Document 85 Filed 01/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7