Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01024/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01024-10/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

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 Benny Ford is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I.

RELEVANT HISTORY

This action is proceeding against Defendant Wildey for excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment and against Defendant Marshall for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. 

On April 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his requests for 

interrogatories and admissions. Defendants filed an opposition on May 15, 2014.

///

///

BENNY FORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

G. WILDEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01024-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL

[ECF No. 45]

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 54 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12
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

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of 

confinement. As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would 

otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to 

involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 37, Discovery and Scheduling Order, &5. Further, where 

otherwise discoverable information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or 

infringe upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in 

determining whether disclosure should occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. 

Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21, 104 S.Ct. 2199 (1984) (privacy rights or interests implicit in broad 

purpose and language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court 

for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing assertion of privilege); Soto 

v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a constitutionally-based right 

of privacy that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB 

PC, 2012 WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting inmate=s entitlement to inspect 

discoverable information may be accommodated in ways which mitigate institutional safety concerns); 

Robinson v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 

16, 2012) (issuing protective order regarding documents containing information which implicated the 

safety and security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for protective order and for redaction of information 

asserted to risk jeopardizing safety and security of inmates or the institution if released); Womack v. 

Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) 

(requiring defendants to submit withheld documents for in camera review or move for a protective 

order). 

However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The 

discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 54 Filed 06/06/14 Page 2 of 12
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

discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 

1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties may obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party=s claim or defense, and for good cause, 

the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial 

if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

(quotation marks omitted).

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. 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 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). 

B. Motion to Compel

1. Interrogatories

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(2) provides that an interrogatory may relate to any 

matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b). An interrogatory is not objectionable merely 

because it asks for an opinion or contention 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).

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 54 Filed 06/06/14 Page 3 of 12
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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33(b)(1)(A) provides the interrogatories must be answered by 

the party to whom they are directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1)(A). Further, each interrogatory must, to 

the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath and the grounds 

for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) & (4).

2. Defendant Wildey

a. Interrogatory Number 14 (Set One):

“On the date of 7-16-2009, were you aware that it was unconstitutional for correctional officers 

to intentionally squeeze a pair of handcuffs around a inmates wrists with all your strength?” (Pl.’s 

Mot. To Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. B at 18.1) 

Response:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it assumes facts not in evidence specifically that 

Defendant “intentionally squeezed a pair of handcuffs around any inmate’s wrist on July 16, 2009 with 

all Defendant’s strength” or any other date. Without waiving this objection, Defendant responded: it 

is unconstitutional for a correctional officer to intentionally and maliciously use force on an inmate 

with the intent of causing serious bodily injury. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, at Ex. B. at 19.) 

Plaintiff’s Objection to Response:

Plaintiff argues Defendant Wildey’s response to interrogatory number 14 is not a direct 

response and contains excessive verbiage. 

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Defendant Wildey provided a sufficient response to 

this request for admission by stating his awareness of the unconstitutionality if an officer intentionally 

and maliciously using force on an inmate with the intent to cause serious bodily injury. Such response 

is the proper legal definition of excessive force as it applies to Plaintiff’s claim under the Eighth 

Amendment. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) (for claims arising out of the use of 

excessive physical force, the issue is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or 

restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37, 

 

1

The pages number reflect the pagination as it appears on the Court’s Case Management Electronic Case Filing System. 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 54 Filed 06/06/14 Page 4 of 12
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

130 S.Ct. 1175, 1178 (2010) (per curiam) (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7) (internal quotation marks 

omitted); Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1028 (9th Cir. 2013)).

b. Interrogatory Number 15 (Set One)

“On 7-16-2009, was it against rules, procedures, or policies of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation for a correctional officer to intentionally squeeze a pair of handcuffs 

around a inmates wrists with all your strength?” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. B at 19.)

Response: 

Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it assumes facts not in evidence specifically that 

Defendant “intentionally squeezed a pair of handcuffs around any inmate’s wrist on July 16, 2009 with 

all Defendant’s strength,” or any other date. Without waiving this objection, Defendant responded: it 

is against policy and procedure for a correctional officer to intentionally and maliciously use force on 

an inmate with the intent of causing serious bodily injury. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. B 

at 19.)

Plaintiff’s Objection to Response:

Plaintiff argues Defendant Wildey’s response to interrogatory number 15 is not a direct 

response and contains excessive verbiage. 

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Defendant Wildey provided a sufficient response to 

this request by advising Plaintiff that it is against policy and procedure for a correctional officer to 

intentionally and maliciously use force on an inmate with the intent of causing serious bodily injury, 

which is the correct legal definition of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See 

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. at 6. 

c. Interrogatory Number 25 (Set Two)

“What are the names of previous lawsuits you’ve been named as a defendant in?” (Pl.’s Mot. 

to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. A at 10.)

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, burdensome, 

irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 54 Filed 06/06/14 Page 5 of 12
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

waiving said objections, I do know the names of other lawsuits where I have been named a defendant, 

and after a reasonable and diligent search, I was not able to locate that information.” (Pl.’s Mot. to 

Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. A at 11: see Bajwa Decl. § 2, Ex. A.) 

Defense counsel submits that in preparing the opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, 

counsel discovered a typographical error in the original responses propounded on Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, Defendant Wildey has amended the response to this interrogatory as reflected below. 

(Bajwa Decl., Ex. A.)

Supplemental Response:2

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, burdensome, 

irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 

waiving said objections, I do not know the names of other lawsuits where I have been named a 

defendant, and after a reasonable and diligent search, I was not able to locate that information.

Plaintiff’s Objections to Response:

Plaintiff argues Defendant Wildey has not provided a full and complete response to this 

interrogatory.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant Wildey cannot plausibly claim that he not 

aware of the names of previous lawsuits where he was named a defendant, and Defendant makes no 

specific showing of the details of the diligent search which he claims he conducted. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is granted. 

3. Defendant Marshall

a. Interrogatory Numbers 16, 17, and 19

In his opposition, Defendant Marshall indicates that in the interest of cooperation, he will 

amend and re-serve his responses to Interrogatories Numbers 16, 17, and 19. (Bajwa Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 

C.) The Court will address each interrogatory along with the supplemental response provided by 

Defendant Marshall.

 

2

Defendant Wildey amended his response to Plaintiff’s request for interrogatories on May 9, 2014, subsequent to the date 

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel on April 24, 2014. (Bajwa Decl., Ex. D.) 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 54 Filed 06/06/14 Page 6 of 12
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

b. Interrogatory Number 16

“On 7-16-2009, did you know that a correctional officer could be held liable under the eighth 

amendmend (sic) of the Federal Constitution, if he see’s another officer physically assaulting a 

innocent inmate and he doesn’t intervene?”

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, calls for

speculation, calls for a legal conclusion, and is vague as to the term “innocent.” Without waiving said 

objections, Defendant responds: Correctional officers are allowed to use force as necessary to maintain 

the safety and security of the prison institution, consistent with use of force policies in place at the 

institution and with their training.

Plaintiff’s Objection to Response:

Plaintiff objected that Defendant Marshall did not respond to the direct question. (Pl.’s Mot. to 

Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. F, at 2.) 

Supplemental Response:3

Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, calls for 

speculation, calls for a legal conclusion, and is vague as to the term “innocent.” Without waiving said 

objections, Defendant responds: Correctional officers are allowed to use force as necessary to maintain 

the safety and security of the prison institution, consistent with use of force policies in place at the 

institution and with their training. Yes, I am aware that correctional officers have a duty to ensure the 

safety and security of all inmates, from other inmates and correctional staff, and must intervene to stop 

any assaults on inmates by other inmates or correctional staff.

Ruling:

In light of Defendant Marshall’s supplemental response, Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be 

denied. Defendant Marshall’s supplemental response is sufficient by advising Plaintiff that 

correctional officers have a duty to ensure the safety and security of all inmates and must intervene to 

 

3

Defendant Marshall amended his response to Plaintiff’s request for interrogatories on May 9, 2014, subsequent to the 

date Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel on April 24, 2014. (Bajwa Decl., Ex. C.) 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 54 Filed 06/06/14 Page 7 of 12
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

stop any assault by other individuals. United States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416, 1447 n.25 (9th Cir. 1994), 

rev’d on other grounds, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (“[P]olice officers have a duty to intercede when their 

fellow officers violate the constitutional rights of a suspect or other citizen.”).

4

 

c. Interrogatory Number 17

“On 7-16-2009, did you know it was a violation of the California Code of Regulations Title 15, 

sections 3268.1(?)(1), and 3268.1(c) for a correctional officer to see a inmate being physically 

assaulted by a corrupt fellow officer and not to intervene or report the criminal activity to your 

supervisor?”

Initial Response:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, is compound, 

calls for speculation and is vague as to the terms “physically assaulted by a corrupt fellow officer” and 

“not to intervene or report the criminal activity to your supervisor.” Without waiving said objections, 

Defendant responds: Correctional officers are allowed to use force as necessary to maintain the safety 

and security of the prison institution, consistent with use of force policies in place at the institution and 

with their training.

Plaintiff’s Objection to Response:

Plaintiff objected that Defendant Marshall did not answer the direct question as phrased and 

seeks to eliminate the unnecessary rhetoric. 

Supplemental Response:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, calls for 

speculation calls for a legal conclusion, and is vague as to the terms “physically assaulted by a corrupt 

fellow officer.” Without waiving said objections, Defendant responds: Correctional officers are 

 

4

The Court is mindful of the fact that Defendants amended certain responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests only after 

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. If any party attempts to withhold documents or provide adequate responses to discovery 

requests until the other side institutes litigation over the matter through a motion to compel or other relief, then the Court 

may be inclined to rely solely on the initial response in deciding the matter and for other relief as the Court deems just. 

The Court is very attuned to the fact that litigation may require amendments to discovery responses in light of the focused 

litigation, but is also mindful that it often does not. Careful attention should be given to a first response so as to avoid

unnecessary litigation. Here, a number of the responses were not addressed properly the first time. Careful attention will 

be given to avoid wasting the limited resources of this court, especially as in this case when two judicial officers are 

involved with the case. If persistence and failure to heed the warnings of the court is the course of practice, then initial 

disclosure may be the required course of action in the future.

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 54 Filed 06/06/14 Page 8 of 12
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

allowed to use force as necessary to maintain the safety and security of the prison institution, 

consistent with use of force policies in place at the institution and with their training. Yes, I know that 

it is a violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3268.1 et. seq. for a correctional 

officer not to report a use of force upon an inmate by another correctional officer.

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Defendant Marshall’s supplemental response was 

sufficient to respond to the interrogatory because it adequately set forth the Defendant’s knowledge of

the applicable law. 

d. Interrogatory Number 19

“On or before 7-16-2009, did you know it was a violation of a inmate’s constitutional rights 

under the Eight Amendmend [sic] for a correctional officer to squeeze a pair of handcuffs around a 

inmates wrists extremely tight and refuse to loosen them?”

Response:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, calls for 

speculation and is vague as to the terms “a correctional officer to squeeze a pair of handcuffs around a 

inmates wrists extremely tight and refuse to loosen them.” Without waiving said objections, 

Defendant responds: Correctional officers are taught to place handcuffs on inmates, and check the 

handcuffs to ensure the cuffs are not too tight by sliding their index finger between the handcuffs and 

the inmate’s wrist.

Plaintiff’s Objection to Response:

Plaintiff contended that Defendant Marshall failed to respond to the simple and direct question 

and seeks to eliminate the unnecessary rhetoric. 

Supplemental Response:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it calls for a legal opinion, assumes facts not in 

evidence, calls for speculation and is vague as to the terms “a correctional officer to squeeze a pair of 

handcuffs around a inmates wrists extremely tight and refuse to loosen them.” Without waiving said 

objections, Defendant responds: Correctional officers are taught to place handcuffs on inmates, and 

check the handcuffs to ensure the cuffs are not too tight by sliding their index finger between the 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 54 Filed 06/06/14 Page 9 of 12
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

handcuffs and the inmate’s writs. If the handcuffs are too tight, an inmate can feel discomfort or pain. 

I know that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment to use force on an inmate with the intent of 

causing serious bodily injury. 

Ruling: 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Defendant Marshall’s supplemental response is 

sufficient to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatory by setting forth Defendant’s knowledge of the law. 

e. Interrogatory Number 22 (Set One)

“What are the name(s) of previous lawsuits you have been named as a Defendant in?” (Pl.’s 

Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. D. at 46.) 

Response:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, burdensome, 

irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. No 

response will be provided. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. D at 47.)

Plaintiff’s Objection to Response:

Plaintiff argues he is entitled to a “truthful” response because Defendant Marshall is 

“pretending to be an innocent and conscientious officer.” 

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant Wildey cannot plausibly claim that he not 

aware of the names of previous lawsuits where he was named a defendant, and Defendant makes no 

specific showing of the details of the diligent search which he claims he conducted. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is granted. 

4. Request for Admission-Defendant Wildey

A 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 facts, the application 

of law to fact, or opinions about either, and the genuineness of any described documents. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 36(a). 

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 54 Filed 06/06/14 Page 10 of 12
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

a. Request for Admission Number 39 (Set One)

“While employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), 

you have had medical training, which could assist you in, making a credible medical determination 

when dealing with inmates.” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. C at 35.) 

Response:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague as to the terms “medical 

training, which could assist you in, making a credible medical determination when dealing with 

inmates,” and subject matter. Based on this objection, Defendant cannot answer the request as 

phrased. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. C at 35.) 

Plaintiff’s Objection to Response:

Plaintiff argues that Defendant Wildey refused to respond to this request for admission, but 

gave a “medical” type answer to another request for admission in number 37.

In his motion to compel, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Wildey’s failure to timely respond to 

this request for admission results in the automatic admission of the matters requested pursuant to 

Rule 36(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff further argues Defendant Wildey 

should be compelled at the very minimum to give a further response to this request for admission. 

Ruling:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to this request for admission is denied. As an initial 

matter, Plaintiff provides no authority to support his contention that Defendant Wildey provided a 

“medical” type response to request for admission number 37, by responding: “Defendant objects to 

this request on the grounds that it calls for an opinion that this Defendant is not qualified to opine on, 

and therefore seeks irrelevant information not likely to lead to admissible evidence. Defendant 

further objects on the grounds that this request is an incomplete hypothetical. Defendant further 

objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation and is vague as to the term ‘severe 

pain.’ Without waiving said objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that the 

application of handcuffs can cause discomfort if the handcuffs are applied so tightly that they 

constrict blood flow to the wrist.” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. C at 35.) Defendant 

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 54 Filed 06/06/14 Page 11 of 12
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

correctly acknowledges that his response to this request is based on general knowledge, i.e. if a 

person’s body part is squeezed too tight, blood flow can be constricted. 

The term “medical training” is vague as medical training encompasses a wide array of 

specialties, ranging from basic CPR training to a medical degree. Plaintiff’s request is also vague as 

to the terms “making a credible medical determination when dealing with inmates,” because this type 

of situation can involve a variety of possible circumstances. The Court is unable to determine the 

exact nature of the request as Plaintiff was not sufficiently specific in his request. Accordingly, the 

Court will not require a further response to this request for admission, and Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel is denied.

III.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to Interrogatory Number 25 as to 

Defendant Wildey and Interrogatory Number 22 as to Defendant Marshall. Defendants 

are ordered to respond to such interrogatories within thirty days from the date of service 

of this order; and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED in all other respects. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 54 Filed 06/06/14 Page 12 of 12