Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01001/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01001-9/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

GERALDINE DARDEN,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

TODD SPENCER, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01001-LJO-EPG-PC

ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONIC

HEARING HELD ON APRIL 25, 2016

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 47.)

ORDER FOR DEFENDANT TO SERVE 

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF‟S 

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST 

FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

ON OR BEFORE MAY 24, 2016, AS 

INSTRUCTED BY THIS ORDER

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S 

MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE 

TO AMEND PLEADINGS, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL OF THE 

MOTION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AS 

INSTRUCTED BY THIS ORDER

(ECF No. 49.)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SIGN AND 

RETURN CONSENT/DECLINE FORM 

WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

 

I. BACKGROUND

Geraldine Darden (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 on June 21, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) The case now proceeds 

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 64 Filed 05/06/16 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

on the First Amended Complaint filed on February 11, 2013, against defendant Dr. Scott H. 

Driscoll (“Defendant”), for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

(ECF No. 19.)1

On October 27, 2015, Defendant consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. ' 636(c). (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff has not consented to or declined Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction. 

This case is in the discovery phase, with a deadline of May 24, 2016 for the parties to 

complete discovery, including the filing of motions to compel. (ECF No. 33.)

On March 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories. (ECF 

No. 47.) On March 24, 2016, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 48.) On 

April 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition. (ECF No. 56.)

On March 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the deadline to amend pleadings. 

(ECF No. 49.) On April 7, 2016, Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 55.) On April 20, 

2016, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition. (ECF No. 59.)

On March 24, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on 

Plaintiff‟s failure to exhaust remedies before filing suit. (ECF No. 50.) On April 18, 2016, the 

Court granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time to file an opposition. (ECF No. 57.) 

II. APRIL 25, 2016 TELEPHONIC HEARING

On April 25, 2016 at 11:00 a.m., a telephonic hearing was held before Magistrate Judge 

Erica P. Grosjean to informally discuss the status of this case, Plaintiff‟s motion for extension 

of the deadline to amend pleadings, and discovery including Plaintiff‟s Motion to Compel filed 

on March 4, 2016. Plaintiff appeared telephonically on her own behalf, and Nicole M. Jaffee of 

Donnelly, Nelson, Depolo & Murray appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant. 

A. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

The Court discussed the parties‟ option to consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in 

this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). Defendant has consented, but Plaintiff has not 

 

1 On June 18, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from 

this action based on Plaintiff‟s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 30.)

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 64 Filed 05/06/16 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

consented or declined. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff the Court‟s form for consent/decline of

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, and Plaintiff shall sign and return the form within fourteen days.

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

The Court heard Plaintiff‟s motion to compel filed on March 4, 2016. (ECF No. 47.) 

Plaintiff requests further responses to Interrogatories nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2

Explain each incident where you have either provided a “false negative” 

or an incorrect diagnosis.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is

overbroad, vague and ambiguous as to the term “incident.” It is also

argumentative. It further seeks information protected by the attorneyclient privilege and/or work-product doctrine and expert opinion. It also 

seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of relevant or admissible information.

Ruling

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel is granted in part. Defendant must respond to this 

interrogatory as narrowed by the Court to include only incidents of public filings of a complaint 

or otherwise, including lawsuits, alleging there was a false negative, incorrect diagnoses, or 

other malpractice by Defendant.

///

INTERROGATORY NO. 4

How many times did you supposedly use the CAD on any patient at

Central California Women‟s Facility before and after Incident.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is

overbroad, vague and ambiguous generally and specifically regarding the 

term “Incident.” It is also argumentative. It further seeks information 

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 64 Filed 05/06/16 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

protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.

It also seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of relevant or admissible information. Further, it requests 

confidential information regarding individuals not named as parties to 

the action, which, if disclosed, may constitute an unwarranted invasion 

of privacy.

Ruling

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel is granted in part. Defendant shall respond to this 

interrogatory in a declaration under oath, to his best recollection, how many times he used a

CAD on any patient at CCWF before and after the incident. Defendant must do a reasonable 

search and answer according to his best memory. If no records are available, Defendant‟s 

declaration giving his best estimate is sufficient.

///

INTERROGATORY NO. 5

Do you treat the patients in prison with the same care as those in society. 

Explain.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is

overbroad, vague and ambiguous. It is also argumentative. It further

seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or workproduct doctrine and expert opinion. It also seeks information that is not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible 

information. Further, it requests confidential information regarding 

individuals not named as parties to the action, which, if disclosed, may 

constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Ruling

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel is granted in part. Defendant shall respond to this 

interrogatory by stating his understanding of his duty of care to patients at CCWF and to 

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 64 Filed 05/06/16 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

patients in the general public. Defendant shall also respond whether he treats his patients at 

CCWF the same as his patients in the general public.

///

INTERROGATORY NO. 6

What is the course of action required in order to meet the standards of

adequate medical care for a patient with a history of breast [cancer] that 

shows a macrocalcification in her breast.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is

overbroad, vague, ambiguous and nonsensical. It is also argumentative. 

It further seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 

and/or work-product doctrine and expert opinion. It also seeks 

information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

relevant or admissible information. Further, it requests confidential 

information regarding individuals not named as parties to the action, 

which, if disclosed, may constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Ruling

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel is granted, with a modification to the interrogatory. 

Defendant shall respond to the question, “What, if anything, do you contend was the standard 

procedure to follow in 2009 for treating a patient with a diagnosis of microcalcification in a 

breast, and did you follow the standard procedure?” 

///

INTERROGATORY NO. 8

Identify each misdemeanor of which you have been convicted.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks

information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

relevant or admissible information.

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 64 Filed 05/06/16 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

Ruling

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel is granted in part. Under Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of 

Evidence, evidence of Defendant‟s convictions of misdemeanors, if any, may not be used to 

show Defendant‟s character. However, such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, 

including the impeachment of testimony. 

In opposition to Plaintiff‟s motion to compel, Defendant cites the Ninth Circuit‟s 

decision in U.S. v. Colbert, 116 F.3d 395 (9th Cir. 1997) that a witness‟s prior misdemeanor 

conviction for lewd conduct was inadmissible for impeachment purposes under the Federal 

Rules of Evidence governing impeachment by prior conviction, to wit: 

“Federal Rules of Evidence 608 and 609 limit a defendant‟s 

ability to impeach an adverse witness with his prior criminal 

record during cross-examination. Rule 609(a) allows a witness to 

be impeached with a prior conviction if (1) „the crime was 

punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under 

the law under which he was convicted,‟ or if (2) the crime 

„involved dishonesty or a false statement, regardless of the 

punishment.‟ Rule 608(b) prohibits the introduction of specific 

acts of conduct for the purpose of impeaching a witness‟s 

credibility unless the district court finds such acts to be „probative 

of truthfulness or untruthfulness.‟”

Colbert, 116 F.3d at 395. The Court found the witness‟s misdemeanor conviction inadmissible 

under Rule 609(a)(1) because the witness was only subject to a maximum imprisonment term 

of six months as a result of the misdemeanor conviction, and under Rule 609(a)(2) because the 

conviction did not involve dishonesty or false statement. The Court adopted the Fifth Circuit‟s 

holding that “a conviction for prostitution does not involve dishonesty or false statement and is 

not admissible under 609(a)(2) for impeachment purposes.” Id. (citing United States v. 

Walker, 613 F.2d 1349, 1354 (5th Cir. 1980)). 

Here, Plaintiff‟s facts are distinguishable from those in Colbert. As in Colbert, Plaintiff 

requests evidence of misdemeanor convictions, which are not admissible under Rule 609(a)(1) 

if the imprisonment term is less than one year. However, unlike the witness in Colbert, whose 

misdemeanor conviction for prostitution did not involve dishonesty or false statement, 

Defendant‟s misdemeanors, if any, may involve dishonesty or a false statement, and would be 

admissible under Rule 609(a)(2). Therefore, the decision in Colbert that the witness‟s 

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 64 Filed 05/06/16 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

misdemeanor was not admissible under Rule 609(a)(2) is not applicable to all misdemeanors, 

but only to those that do not involve dishonesty or a false statement. Therefore, Defendant 

shall be required to respond to this interrogatory by identifying any misdemeanor for which he 

was convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or a false statement. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that under Rule 404(b)(1), he may not use evidence of a 

misdemeanor to prove Defendant‟s character “in order to show that on a particular occasion 

[Defendant] acted in accordance with the character.” However, as discussed above, this 

evidence may be admissible for impeachment of Defendant‟s character for truthfulness under 

Rule 609(a)(2), which permits a witness‟s character for truthfulness to be attacked with 

evidence of “any crime regardless of the punishment, [and] the evidence must be admitted if 

the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving--or 

the witness‟s admitting--a dishonest act or false statement.”

INTERROGATORY NO. 9

Are you privy to the growing rate of an aggressive ductal breast cancer.

Please describe.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is

overbroad, vague and ambiguous generally and specifically regarding the 

term “privy.” It is also argumentative. It further seeks information

protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine

and expert opinion. It also seeks information that is not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible information.

Ruling

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel is granted with modification to the interrogatory. 

Defendant is required to respond to the question, “In 2009, were you aware of research 

indicating a growing rate of an aggressive ductile breast cancer?”

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 64 Filed 05/06/16 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

INTERROGATORY NO. 10

Do you allege that you made a non-prejudicial decision in not ordering

further tests on plaintiff‟s left breast macrocalcification on July 02, 2009.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is

overbroad, vague, ambiguous and nonsensical. It is also argumentative.

It further seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 

and/or work-product doctrine and expert opinion. It also seeks 

information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

relevant or admissible information.

Ruling

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel is granted with modification to the interrogatory. On or 

before August 4, 2016, Defendant is required to provide a response to the question, “In 

hindsight, do you contend that you made any errors, intentional or unintentional, by not 

ordering further tests on Plaintiff‟s left breast microcalcification on July 2, 2009?” 

C. Other Discovery Issues

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Production of Documents

At the hearing, Plaintiff stated that she filed a motion for production of documents and 

did not receive a response from Defendant. Defense counsel denied receiving such motion, and 

the Court found no record of such motion on the Court‟s docket. Plaintiff described the 

documents she had requested in the motion, which the Court narrowed to three categories: (1) 

documents related to Plaintiff‟s medical treatment, (2) documents related to the Victim‟s 

Compensation Claims Board, and (3) documents related to CAD procedures for 

microcalcification of a breast. 

Defense counsel stated that she had subpoenaed Plaintiff‟s prison records and received 

sixteen volumes of documents containing thousands of pages, most which are not relevant to 

this case. The Court proposed that Defendant either (1) provide Plaintiff with the documents 

received by Defendant that are related to Plaintiff and her treatment for breast cancer, (2) take 

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 64 Filed 05/06/16 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

the sixteen volumes of documents to Plaintiff and allow her at least two hours to review the 

documents, or (3) make copies of the sixteen volumes of documents and provide the copies to 

Plaintiff. At the hearing, the parties agreed that Defendant will either (1) provide all of the 

sixteen volumes of documents to Plaintiff for her review, or (2) provide only the documents 

concerning Plaintiff and her breast, with a statement explaining which of the documents from 

the sixteen volumes were removed by Defendant and not provided to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff also seeks medical records from Spencer Radiology in Madera, California, and 

R2Technologies. The Court allowed Plaintiff time to subpoena records from these third 

parties. Plaintiff must file a motion with the Court on or before May 24, 2016, for issuance of 

a subpoena, and serve a copy of the motion on the third party.

Defense counsel stated that she subpoenaed records from California‟s Victims 

Compensation and Government Claims Board regarding Plaintiff‟s claim, and received letters 

advising her that the claim was rejected. The Court ordered defense counsel to provide copies 

of the Claims Board documents that she has to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was advised that in order to 

request documents from the Claims Board, which is a third party, she must file a motion with 

the Court for issuance of a subpoena. 

With respect to Plaintiff‟s request for documents concerning CAD (computer aided

detection) and breast microcalcification, Defendant is required to produce documents 

addressing this topic that he has in his possession, custody, and control, including reference 

materials and records at the prison, and other reference materials and guides that he would refer 

to, limited to those documents available in 2009 when Defendant treated Plaintiff. 

The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a motion to compel but recommended she wait 

until after Defendant has provided documents and Plaintiff has pursued any documents by

subpoena.

D. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Amend Pleadings

Plaintiff seeks leave to extend the Court‟s March 24, 2016 deadline to amend pleadings 

(ECF No. 33). Defendant argues that Plaintiff should not be permitted to amend the complaint 

at this late stage of the proceedings Defendant contends that the Court‟s screening order 

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 64 Filed 05/06/16 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

limited Plaintiff‟s deliberate indifference claim to the allegation that Defendant falsified a claim 

to have used computer aided detection (CAD) in Plaintiff‟s treatment. The Court took 

Plaintiff‟s motion to extend the deadline under submission. 

The Court now denies Plaintiff‟s motion to extend the deadline to amend pleadings, 

without prejudice. There is no amended complaint before the Court upon which to base a 

decision. Plaintiff is not precluded from renewing the motion within thirty days, together with 

submission of a proposed amended complaint for the Court‟s review.

E. Scope of the Complaint

During the April 25, 2016 hearing, the parties discussed the scope of the complaint. 

Notably, the Court‟s screening order of April 9, 2015 provides that:

Plaintiff has a family history of breast cancer. Plaintiff alleges 

that on June 27, 2009, she underwent a mammogram with a 

finding of “retroareolar macrocalicification left breast.” The 

report was authored by Dr. Driscoll, who Plaintiff alleges 

“breached the standard of care by inadequately misdiagnosing a 

cancerous lump as a cyst. He showed deliberate indifference by 

falsifying a claim to have used computer aided detection (CAD), 

a more thorough technique that shows images in greater detail.” 

Dr. Driscoll failed to recommend a biopsy for Plaintiff‟s “benign 

calcification.” The falsified claim resulted in Plaintiff eventually 

“losing” her left breast, a permanent disfigurement.

B. Eighth Amendment Claims 

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison 

medical treatment, an inmate must show „deliberate indifference 

to serious medical needs.‟” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 

S.Ct. 295 (1976)). The two part test for deliberate indifference 

requires a plaintiff to show (1) “„a serious medical need‟ by 

demonstrating that „failure to treat a prisoner‟s condition could 

result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain,‟” and (2) “the defendant‟s response to the need 

was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting 

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), 

overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 

F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations 

omitted)). 

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the need for medical care for her 

condition and the failure of Defendant Driscoll to adequately 

address her treatment. Accordingly, Plaintiff states a claim for 

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

(ECF No. 22 at 2.) 

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 64 Filed 05/06/16 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

Based on this order, and Plaintiff‟s statement in her May 13, 2015 notice to the Court 

(ECF No. 25) agreeing to go forward with claims found cognizable, the Court understands that 

Plaintiff‟s claim is for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs by inadequately 

misdiagnosing a cancerous lump as a cyst. The basis for finding that Plaintiff met the standard 

for deliberate indifference focused on Defendant‟s falsifying a claim to have used a computer 

aided detection method, but Plaintiff‟s deliberate indifference claim in this case also includes 

inadequately misdiagnosing a cancerous lump as a cyst more generally.

F. Settlement Conference

The Court intends to schedule a settlement conference for this case after resolution of 

Defendant‟s motion for summary judgment. If the motion is denied, the Court shall schedule 

another status conference.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s motion to compel, filed on March 4, 2016, is GRANTED in part;

2. Defendants shall serve responses to Plaintiff‟s interrogatories and request for 

production of documents on or before May 24, 2016,

2

as instructed by this 

order;

3. Plaintiff‟s motion to extend the deadline to amend pleadings, filed on March 24, 

2016, is DENIED without prejudice to renewal of the motion within thirty days, 

as instructed by this order;

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff the Court‟s form for 

consent/decline of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction;

5. Within fourteen days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall complete 

the consent/decline form and return it to the Court; and

///

///

 

2 Except for Defendant‟s response to Interrogatory no. 10, which is due on or before August 4, 

2016. (See this order at p. 8 lines 11-12.)

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 64 Filed 05/06/16 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

6. After resolution of Defendant‟s pending motion for summary judgment, the 

Court shall schedule another status conference if needed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 64 Filed 05/06/16 Page 12 of 12