Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02757/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02757-13/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL BAKER,

Plaintiff, No. 2: 09-cv-2757 MCE KJN P

vs.

PEREZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s September 12, 2011 motion

for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration and plaintiff’s September 19, 2011

motion for reconsideration. Defendants have not responded to either motion.

After reviewing plaintiff’s pending motions, it appears that both are addressed to

the undersigned. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is granted,

and the motion for reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part. 

Motion for Extension of Time

Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file the motion for reconsideration of the

August 24, 2011 order granting in part and denying in part his motion to compel. Local Rule

303(b), states, “rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought

Case 2:09-cv-02757-MCE-KJN Document 79 Filed 10/12/11 Page 1 of 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

2

from the Court within fourteen days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties. . .” 

E.D. Local Rule 303(b). 

The grounds of plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time are that he had

inadequate law library access due to the Labor Day holiday which resulted in closure of the law

library on September 5 and 6, 2011. Plaintiff also alleges that he had difficulty in obtaining

copies. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is granted and his

motion for reconsideration filed September 19, 2011 is deemed timely filed.

Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of part of the twenty-seven page August 24, 2011

order addressing his motion to compel. In particular, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the

court’s rulings regarding (1) request for production of documents (set one) nos. 1, 8, 10, 12, 13,

16 and 18; (2) interrogatories to defendant Medina, nos. 1, 2, 3, 14, 16; (3) request for

admissions to defendant Medina, no. 96; (4) interrogatories to defendant Swingle, nos. 21, 15;

(5) request for admissions to defendant Swingle, nos. 28, 32; (5) request for admissions to

defendant Miller, nos. 32, 40, 47; (6) interrogatory to defendant Bowers, no. 14; (7) request for

admissions to defendant Bowers, nos. 33, 112, 120; (8) interrogatories to defendant St. Laurents,

nos. 6, 12.

In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff alleges that as to several of the at-issue

discovery requests, after receiving defendants’ initial objections, he served defendants with

amended requests addressing the objections. Defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion to

compel did not address plaintiff’s amended requests. Rather, defendants’ opposition addressed 

the original requests. In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff asks the undersigned to consider

his amended requests. 

Because the undersigned is concerned that defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s

motion to compel did not address the amended requests, the motion for reconsideration asking

the undersigned to consider the amended requests is granted. However, in considering the

Case 2:09-cv-02757-MCE-KJN Document 79 Filed 10/12/11 Page 2 of 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

 Plaintiff is, himself, somewhat at fault for not bringing the amended requests to the 1

court’s attention sooner. 

3

amended requests, the undersigned orders responses from defendants only as to those amended

requests that cure the defects of the original requests.

1

Request for Production of Documents

After reviewing plaintiff’s arguments for reconsideration of the orders denying his

request for production of documents, the undersigned finds no grounds to reconsider the orders

regarding request nos. 1, 8, 12, 13, 16 and 18. However, in request no. 10, plaintiff sought all

documents regarding medication/distribution policies in effect at High Desert State Prison

(“HDSP”). In the opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants stated that in addition to

the documents originally provided, they have supplemented their answers with hundreds of pages

of additional documents. Defendants stated that they had nothing more to add. The undersigned

denied the motion to compel regarding request no. 10 because plaintiff had not demonstrated

how the documents provided did not adequately respond to his request.

In the request for reconsideration, plaintiff states that defendants provided

Operational Procedure # 744 regarding pain management in response to request no. 10. (Dkt. 78

at 55.) Plaintiff states that “attachment C” is missing from this document. Plaintiff states that he

sent a letter to defense counsel requesting the missing “attachment C,” to which he apparently

received no response. (Id. at 56.) Defendants are directed to file supplemental briefing

addressing whether there is an “attachment C” to Operational Procedure # 744 and, if so, why it

was not provided to plaintiff.

Interrogatories, Request for Admissions to Defendant Medina

The undersigned has reviewed the motion for reconsideration regarding

interrogatories nos. 1, 2, 3, 14 and 16 addressed to defendant Medina. With regard to

interrogatories no. 1, 2, 3 and 14, plaintiff served defendants with amended interrogatories after

receiving defendants’ initial objections. 

Case 2:09-cv-02757-MCE-KJN Document 79 Filed 10/12/11 Page 3 of 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

4

Interrogatory no. 1 asked defendant Medina, “State all facts upon which you

based your contention to not have the plaintiff treated for his serious medical need on November

10, 2008 when you chose to discontinue (D/C) plaintiff’s medication of Tramadol 50 mg 4 x day

without seeking or talking to the plaintiff.” Plaintiff’s amended interrogatory no. 1 stated, “State

all facts to show why you discontinued plaintiff’s medication of Tramadol 50 mg 4 x a day on

11-10-08.”

Interrogatory no. 2 asked defendant Medina, “State all the names and addresses of

each person who has knowledge of the facts upon which you base such contentions as answered

in interrogatory no. 1.” Plaintiff’s amended interrogatory no. 2 stated, “State the names and

addresses of each person who has any knowledge of your answer to # 1 above.”

Interrogatory no. 3 asked defendant Medina, “Please describe in as much detail

each document you believe supports such contentions as answered above.” Plaintiff amended 

interrogatory no. 3 stated: “Please describe each document you believe supports your answers in

# 1 and # 2 above.”

The undersigned denied the motion to compel as to interrogatories nos. 1-3 on

grounds that they assumed facts not in evidence and expected defendants to answer questions

based on a scenario that did not occur. Plaintiff’s re-written interrogatories address these issues. 

Accordingly, defendants are directed to file further responses to these interrogatories. 

Interrogatory no. 14 asked defendant Medina, “Please describe in as much detail

the effects the body goes through when on a narcotic one year straight is suddenly stopped and

why? Please use Tramadol as the reference for this interrogatory of 200 mg a day use.” The

undersigned denied the motion to compel on grounds that it was an incomplete hypothetical.

Plaintiff amended interrogatory no. 14 stated, “When a 30 year old male with IBS taking

Tramadol 5o mg a day 4x for a year were to suddenly stop taking the Tramadol, what kind of

effects could his body be experiencing after two days time?” 

////

Case 2:09-cv-02757-MCE-KJN Document 79 Filed 10/12/11 Page 4 of 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

5

Amended interrogatory no. 14 is still an improper hypothetical. Kinnee v. Shack,

Inc. 2008 WL 1995458 at *2 (D.Or. May 6, 2008); McClain v. Mack Trucks, Inc. , 85 F.R.D. 53,

59 (E.D.Pa. 1979) (interrogatory calling for an opinion “must be phrased with particularity.” )

Accordingly, defendants are not required to respond to amended interrogatory no. 14. 

After reviewing plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the undersigned also finds

that plaintiff has not shown good cause for the undersigned to reconsider the August 24, 2011

order regarding interrogatory no. 16 and request for admissions no. 96 addressed to defendant

Medina.

Interrogatories, Request for Admissions to Defendant Swingle

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the undersigned to reconsider the August

24, 2011 order regarding interrogatories nos. 15 and 21 and request for admissions no. 28 and 32

addressed to defendant Swingle.

Request for Admissions to Defendant Miller

Request for admission no. 40 asked defendant Miller to admit that on or about

January 10, 2008, RN Clark notified defendant that a nurse, or nurses, did not pass out

medications to inmates on January 1st and 6th 2008. In denying the motion to compel as to this

request, the undersigned stated that he accepted defendant’s representation that she lacked

sufficient knowledge to respond to this request. 

In the request for reconsideration, plaintiff states that interrogatory no. 7, set one,

asked defendant Miller, “Please describe in as much detail as possible any action you took when

you were notified on or about January 10, 2008 by RN Clark that on Jan. 1st and Jan. 6th, 2008,

‘DOT’ medications were not passed out in Z unit.” (Dkt. No. 78 at 64.)

Defendant Miller responded to interrogatory no. 7 as follows:

Miller investigated the incident by speaking with psychiatric

supervisors regarding whether the psychiatric technicians were

following the proper procedures for distribution and signing

medical records once medications were distributed. Miller was

only responsible for supervising RN Clark and did not have any

Case 2:09-cv-02757-MCE-KJN Document 79 Filed 10/12/11 Page 5 of 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

6

reason to believe that he failed to distribute medications on those

dates.

(Id. at 65.)

Based on defendant Miller’s response to interrogatory no. 7, it appears that

defendant Miller is capable of responding to request for admission no. 40. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as to request for admission no. 40 is granted. Defendants

are directed to file a supplemental response to this request.

Request for admission no. 47 asked defendant Miller to admit that she never

counseled “two nurses in question of January 1st and 6th of 2008 for failing to deliver

medications to Z-Unit.” In denying the motion to compel, the undersigned accepted defendant

Miller’s representation that she lacked sufficient knowledge to respond to this request. 

In the request for reconsideration, plaintiff argues that defendant Miller’s response

to interrogatory no. 7 suggests that defendant is capable of responding to request for admission

no. 47. The undersigned agrees. Accordingly, defendant Miller is directed to serve a

supplemental response to request for admission no. 47. 

After reviewing plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the undersigned finds that

plaintiff has not shown good cause for reconsideration of the August 24, 2011 order denying his

motion to compel as to request for admission no. 32 addressed to defendant Miller. 

Interrogatory and Request for Admissions to Defendant Bowers

Interrogatory no. 14 asked defendant Bowers to describe the effects “the human

body goes through when a narcotic for one year straight is stopped and why?” The undersigned

denied the motion to compel as to this interrogatory on grounds that it was vague and an

incomplete hypothetical.

Plaintiff’s amended interrogatory no. 14 stated, “When a 30 year old male with

IBS taking Tramadol 50 mg 4x day for a year were to suddenly stop taking the Tramadol, what

kind of effects could his body be experiencing after two days?” As rephrased, interrogatory no.

14 is still an improper hypothetical. Accordingly, defendants are not required to respond to

Case 2:09-cv-02757-MCE-KJN Document 79 Filed 10/12/11 Page 6 of 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

7

amended interrogatory no. 14. 

Request for admission no. 33 asked defendant to admit that a nurse assigned to

deliver medications to Z-Unit, who does not do so, has then failed to properly do his/her assigned

duties. The undersigned denied the motion to compel as to this request for admission because it

was vague and ambiguous. 

Plaintiff’s amended request for admission no. 33 stated, “Admit you being

assigned 8 AM second watch medication rounds in D6 and not showing up to D6 the whole day

you failed to do you assigned duties.” Although re-written, request for admission no. 33 is still

vague and ambiguous. Accordingly, defendants are not required to respond to amended request

for admission no. 33. 

Request no. 120 asked defendant to admit that on November 7, 2008, plaintiff

gave him a 7362 sick call slip for being in extreme pain. Defendant responded that after a

reasonable investigation, he could not answer this request.

In the request for reconsideration, plaintiff states that he obtained the at-issue sick

call slip from his medical file and it contains defendant Bowers’ signature. Based on plaintiff’s

retrieval of the sick call slip from his medical file, it appears that defendant Bowers may be able

to respond to this request following a reasonable investigation. Accordingly, defendant is

directed to submit a further response to this request for admission.

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the undersigned to reconsider the August

24, 2011 order as to request for admission no. 112.

Interrogatories to Defendant St. Laurent

Interrogatory no. 6 asked defendant to describe “why you feel in your scope of

duty as a psych tech, you are able to make decisions over the phone or whether an individual

warrants medical treatment when not a single person has evaluated or examined him.” In

denying the motion to compel as to this interrogatory, the undersigned found that defendants’

objections to this request (lack of foundation, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

Case 2:09-cv-02757-MCE-KJN Document 79 Filed 10/12/11 Page 7 of 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

8

of admissible evidence, incomplete hypothetical) had merit.

Plaintiff’s amended interrogatory no. 6 stated, “Do you contend in November

2008 you were qualified to make medical care decisions (non-mental health issues) for a patient

over the phone without having examined him nor has that patient been examined by anyone

else?” The objections to original interrogatory no. 6 are applicable to amended interrogatory no.

6. Accordingly, defendants are not required to provide a response to amended interrogatory no.

6. 

Interrogatory no. 12 asked defendant to describe “every” policy, procedure and

practice governing inmate medical care including, but not limited to “man down” responses,

medical distribution, etc. Defendant objected, in part, that the request was overbroad. Without

waiving objection, defendant responded that the policies and procedures regarding “man down”

responses are found in the HDSP Operating Procedures.

Amended interrogatory no. 12 narrowed the scope of the original request to “man

down” responses only. As rephrased, amended interrogatory no. 12 is not necessarily overbroad. 

The fact that the policies are contained in the HDSP Operating Procedures is neither a valid

response nor objection to amended interrogatory no. 12. Accordingly, defendants are directed to

submit a further response to this interrogatory. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Dkt. No. 77) is granted; plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration is deemed timely filed;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 78) is granted in part and

denied in part; within twenty-one days of the date of this order, defendants shall provide a further

response to request for production of documents no. 10, interrogatories nos. 1-3 addressed to

defendant Medina, request for admissions nos. 40 and 47 addressed to defendant Miller, request

for admission no. 120 addressed to defendant Bowers, interrogatory no. 12 addressed to

defendant St. Laurent;

Case 2:09-cv-02757-MCE-KJN Document 79 Filed 10/12/11 Page 8 of 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

9

3. Within twenty-one days thereafter, plaintiff shall file an opposition to

defendants’ summary judgment motion filed August 10, 2011.

DATED: October 11, 2011

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

bak2757.req

Case 2:09-cv-02757-MCE-KJN Document 79 Filed 10/12/11 Page 9 of 9