Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01104/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01104-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

BRENDA ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-cv-1104 OWW NEW

ORDER RE: DR. ANWAR’S

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

O’NEILL’S RULING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

I. BACKGROUND STATEMENT

This matter is before the Court on Defendant, Dr. Anwar’s,

Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order

Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to

Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents. The underlying

case arises out of the treatment of Brenda Allen, a prisoner at

the Central California Women’s Facility and Valley State Prison

for Women at Chowchilla, for violation of her civil rights based

on the knowing performance by Defendant, Dr. Anwar, a contract

physician to the prison, based at Madera Community Hospital, for

knowingly performing invasive and unnecessary surgical procedures

on Plaintiff and other prisoners for profit. Plaintiff’s

complaint alleges that despite a number of complaints concerning

Case 1:05-cv-01104-OWW -GSA Document 160 Filed 03/20/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Dr. Anwar’s medical care and procedures, the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) continued

to send inmate patients to Madera Community Hospital for

surgeries, which were performed by Dr. Anwar. Plaintiff alleges

that Dr. Anwar performed unnecessary surgery which left her with

limited mobility, flexibility, and extreme pain in her arms. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 16, 2006, Plaintiff, Allen, served requests for

production of documents on Dr. Anwar. Defendant Anwar objected

to most of the requests. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel

further responses on January 16, 2007. On January 30, 2007,

Magistrate Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill issued an order granting in

whole or part, the Allen motion to compel as to 19 of the

disputed requests. Defendant Anwar continues to refuse to

produce documents called for by two of the requests, Numbers 3

and 20. Request Number 3 sought all documents supporting Dr.

Anwar’s contention that he lost approximately $100,000 per month,

as he alleged in a related State Court complaint in which Dr.

Anwar sued the CDCR alleging he lost his contract with CDCR to

provide medical services to inmates. Dr. Anwar asserted that

information sought here was not relevant and that his privacy

interests outweighed Ms. Allen’s need for discovery. Request

Number 20 sought documents and communications relating to any

patient with boils, folliculitis, or hydradenitis for whom Dr.

Anwar ever rendered medical care. After evaluating Dr. Anwar’s

objections based on privacy and burden, Judge O’Neill limited

Request Number 20 to the period from January 1994 to July 2004,

Case 1:05-cv-01104-OWW -GSA Document 160 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 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

3

and to incarcerated individuals only. 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A District Judge reviews the non-dispositive orders issued

by a Magistrate Judge for clear error or that the order is

contrary to law. Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951

F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). A reviewing court may not

substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court. Rivera

v. Nibco, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004)

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Request Number 3

Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Anwar performed improper and

unnecessary surgery on Plaintiff and other inmates for financial

gain. Dr. Anwar, in a suit against CDCR, related to performance

of surgeries at Madera Community Hospital for the Women’s Prison,

has alleged lost income of $100,000 per month. This allegation

puts in issue whether Dr. Anwar’s prison-related surgical

practice was profitable. It is relevant. Defendant Anwar cites

no case to the contrary. Dr. Anwar’s citation of Ranney-Brown

Distributors, Inc. v. E.T. Barwick Industries, Inc., 75 F.R.D. 3,

5 (S.D. Ohio 1977) is not helpful. It stands for the

unremarkable position that discovery of facts concerning a

Defendant’s financial status or ability to satisfy a judgment are

not relevant.

Dr. Anwar’s alleged privacy interest does not outweigh the

Plaintiff’s need for discovery. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages

against Dr. Anwar. This directly puts his financial condition

Case 1:05-cv-01104-OWW -GSA Document 160 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 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

4

and net worth in issue. The Magistrate Judge correctly ruled

that state privileges have limited applicability in federal civil

rights litigation. Jackson v. County of Sacramento, 175 F.R.D.

653, 654 (E.D. Cal. 1997). The Magistrate Judge correctly found

that the amount of Dr. Anwar’s profits from his prison-related

surgical practice and financial condition placed in issue by this

suit, outweighed the need for protection of privacy. 

Moreover, the Magistrate Judge correctly noted that a

protective order would fully assure Dr. Anwar’s privacy and that

the financial information can be used only for purposes of this

litigation and not disseminated to third parties. Plaintiffs are

willing to stipulate to a protective order to safeguard Dr.

Anwar’s privacy.

For these reasons, the Magistrate Judge’s Order concerning

Request Number 3 was neither clearly erroneous or contrary to

law. 

B. Request Number 20

The Magistrate Judge limited Request Number 20, by time and

scope, to a prior ten year period and prison-based patients,

which reasonable narrows the universe of information. 

The argument that Dr. Anwar could not identify prison

patients is contradicted by his own computer billing records,

which show the CDCR as the payor on billing statements. 

Dr. Anwar’s alleged privacy rights can be, as correctly

noted by Magistrate Judge O’Neill, fully protected by a

protective order. Where pattern and practice evidence is

relevant both to the alleged intentional and wrongful nature of

Case 1:05-cv-01104-OWW -GSA Document 160 Filed 03/20/07 Page 4 of 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

5

Dr. Anwar’s conduct and also to whether the CDCR had notice of

Dr. Anwar’s alleged wrongful conduct and continued to utilize his

services and/or ratified the conduct, there is no clear error or

finding contrary to law by the Magistrate Judge.

V. CONCLUSION

For all the reasons stated above, Defendant Anwar’s motion

for reconsideration is DENIED.

The documents called for in Requests 3 and 20 shall be

produced within twenty (20) days following the date of service of

this Order.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 13, 2007.

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger

_____________________________

Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

allen v. woodford order re reconsideration

Case 1:05-cv-01104-OWW -GSA Document 160 Filed 03/20/07 Page 5 of 5