Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03166/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03166-15/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

CLINTON WAGNER, 

Plaintiff, No. 2: 09-cv-3166 FCD KJN P

vs.

MOSS POSNER, 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 are plaintiff’s motions to compel filed

October 21, 2010 and October 22, 2010 (Dkt. Nos. 61, 62). For the following reasons, these

motions are denied.

Plaintiff’s first motion to compel (Dkt. No. 61) seeks further responses to twentyseven requests for production of documents. Plaintiff’s second motion to compel (Dkt. No. 62)

seeks further responses to twenty requests for admissions and twenty-seven interrogatories. 

Plaintiff’s motions to compel are denied because they are not well supported. 

Plaintiff does not specifically address why defendants’ responses are inadequate. Rather, in both

motions plaintiff generally argues that defendants’ responses were “evasive or limited.” The

undersigned does not have the resources to go through each of the at-issue discovery requests and

Case 2:09-cv-03166-KJM-KJN Document 72 Filed 01/03/11 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

2

responses on plaintiff’s behalf in order to determine whether defendants’ responses are adequate.

Moreover, the undersigned has reviewed defendants’ responses and does not find

that defendants’ responses are generally inadequate. For example, request for production twenty

asks defendants to produce all of plaintiff’s medical records from July 26, 2005, up until the date

of defendants’ response, including “understandable, legible doctor’s orders.” In response,

defendants referred plaintiff to his California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

medical records which were previously produced to him. Defendants also stated that to the

extent plaintiff requested legible orders, they were not obliged to create these documents in

response to a request for production. The grounds of plaintiff’s objection to this response are not

clear as the response appears adequate.

Request for admission no. 11 addressed to defendant Bal states, “Did you ever tell

Wagner which foods and beverages that he was not supposed to drink?” Defendant objected to

this request on grounds that plaintiff had inappropriately included an interrogatory within a

request for admission. Because this objection has merit, the grounds of plaintiff’s objection to

this response are not clear. Request for admission no. 12 addressed to defendant McAlpine

stated, “Dr. McAlpine did deny Wagner’s medical treatment.” Defendant McAlpine denied this

request. Because defendant denied the request, the grounds of plaintiff’s objection to this

response are not clear. 

Interrogatory no. 14 asked defendant Bal if patients with hepatitis-B were

generally prescribed low sodium diets. Defendant Bal objected on grounds that a response to this

interrogatory called for expert testimony. Apparently, defendant Dr. Bal is not knowledgeable

regarding this matter. Accordingly, the grounds of plaintiff’s objection to this response are not

clear. 

Although defendants’ oppositions to these motions address each of the at-issue

discovery requests, as stated above the undersigned has neither the time nor the resources to go

through each request on plaintiff’s behalf. Although plaintiff is a pro se litigant, it is his burden

Case 2:09-cv-03166-KJM-KJN Document 72 Filed 01/03/11 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

3

in a motion to compel to inform the court of the grounds of his objections to each of defendants’

responses to his at-issue discovery requests. Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to compel (Dkt.

No. 17 and 18) are denied.

DATED: December 30, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

wag3166.com

Case 2:09-cv-03166-KJM-KJN Document 72 Filed 01/03/11 Page 3 of 3