Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02407/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02407-10/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACHARYA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-2407 MCE CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, has filed a motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 49) and a pretrial statement (ECF No. 

54).

I. Motion to Compel

The scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) is broad. 

Discovery may be obtained as to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within 

this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. The court, 

however, may limit discovery if it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained 

from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;” or if the 

party who seeks discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery;” 

or if “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case 2:17-cv-02407-MCE-CKD Document 58 Filed 06/08/20 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

26(b)(2)(C). The purpose of discovery is to “make a trial less a game of blind man’s bluff and 

more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent,” 

United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958) (citation omitted), and “to 

narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties,” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 

(1947).

Where a party fails to produce documents requested under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 34, the party seeking discovery may move for compelled production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request 

satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the party opposing discovery 

has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, 

explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 07-cv-0200 JM PCL, 2009 WL 

1390794 at *1, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42339 at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (citations omitted); 

see also Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 438-39 (9th Cir. 

1992) (upholding denial of motion to compel because moving party did not show the request fell 

within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1)). The opposing party is “required to carry a heavy burden of 

showing why discovery was denied.” Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 

1975).

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel in which he seeks to compel defendants to produce a 

transcription of portions of his medical records and a video recording. (ECF No. 49.) Defendants 

oppose the motion on the grounds that plaintiff is seeking the creation of a document not already 

in existence and that the request for production of surveillance video is a new request.

Defendants’ objection to plaintiff’s request that they provide him with a transcription of 

portions of his medical record because he is unable to read the handwritten record is well taken. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 requires a party to produce documents in their “possession, 

custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). In other words, their obligation is to produce 

documents already in existence, not to create new documents. Defendants produced medical 

records that corresponded to the dates requested (ECF No. 52 at 4) but were under no obligation 

to provide a transcription of those records. The motion will therefore be denied as to this request.

Case 2:17-cv-02407-MCE-CKD Document 58 Filed 06/08/20 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

With respect to plaintiff’s request to compel copies of surveillance video from specific 

dates, the motion will be denied. Defendants have provided a copy of plaintiff’s requests for 

production showing that a request for such video was not previously made. (ECF No. 52-1 at 4-

8.) Because plaintiff did not previously request the video, the motion to compel is improper as to 

this request and will be denied.

II. Pretrial Statement 

Plaintiff has filed a pretrial statement (ECF No. 54) and defendants have objected on the 

ground that it is premature and request that in the event the court construes the statement as a 

motion for summary judgment an order to that effect be issued and they be given an opportunity 

to respond (ECF No. 57).

Because the dispositive motion deadline has not yet passed, it has yet to be determined 

whether this case will proceed to trial and the pretrial statement is premature. If it is determined 

that this case will proceed to trial and a trial date is set, a deadline for filing pretrial statements 

will be set at that time. Furthermore, plaintiff’s pretrial statement is not a motion for summary 

judgment and will not be construed as such. Accordingly, both the pretrial statement and 

defendants’ response will be disregarded.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 49) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s pretrial statement (ECF No. 54) and defendants’ response (ECF No. 57) are 

disregarded. 

Dated: June 8, 2020

13:gome2407.mtc.pretrial

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:17-cv-02407-MCE-CKD Document 58 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 3