Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595-21/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

A.K. SCRIBNER, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04-5595 OWW DLB P

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL 

DOC # 47

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 5, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to compel

further responses to four different discovery requests made to defendants Andrews, Scribner,

Galza, Bendon, Yale, Buckley, Fujioka and Drew. On March 31, 2006, the Court issued a

recommendation that all defendants, with the exception of defendant Yale be dismissed based on

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The District Court adopted this

recommendation on June 2, 2006. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions with respect the dismissed

defendants are moot. In any event, the discovery requests served on each defendant all appear to

be identical. The Court issues the following Order with regard to defendant Yale’s responses to

the discovery at issue:

A. Defendant Yale’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Admissions.

Plaintiff’s Requests Nos. 1 and 2 are not in dispute in that defendant Yale admits in his

statement of undisputed facts in support of summary judgment that he “was employed by the

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 127 Filed 03/26/07 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

27

28

2

CDCR as a correctional officer and at the time pertinent to this lawsuit, was assigned to CSPCOR.” See Findings and Recommendation Recommending Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment Be Denied and Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment Be Denied, p. 9:16-

18.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request Nos. 3, 4 and 5 is denied. 

Defendants Yale’s admissions related to his medical training and ability to terminate medical

treatment are sufficient.

B. Defendant Yale’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of

Documents.

Request No. 1 seeks documents pertaining to plaintiff’s inmate appeals relating to his

property. In response, defendant directed plaintiff to his central file. Based on defendant

Scribner’s response to the same request, other than documents in plaintiff’s central file there are

no further documents responsive to this request. Plaintiff’s motion with respect to Request No. 1

is therefore denied. 

Defendant represents that he produced all available documents in response to Request

Nos. 2, 7, 8 and 9 and that there are no documents responsive to Request No. 5. The Court is

unable to compel production of documents that do not exist.

In response to Request Nos. 4 and 11, defendant advised plaintiff that all responsive

documents would be located in his central file and/or his medical file. Defendants represent that

they made the central file available to plaintiff. No further Order is warranted.

C. Defendant Yale’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Admissions.

Request Nos. 1 -4 ask defendant to admit that he is not qualified to diagnose medical

conditions, prescribe medical treatment or disregard medical treatment and that he did not

examine plaintiff with respect to his need for special shoes. Defendant’s admissions are

sufficient.

Defendant has properly responded to Request No. 7 by denying the request. No further

Order is warranted. 

Defendant’s objection to Request No. 8 is sustained. The request is overly broad. 

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 127 Filed 03/26/07 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

27

28

3

Based on the foregoing, defendant’s responses to plaintiff’s discovery do not warrant

further Order by the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 23, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 127 Filed 03/26/07 Page 3 of 3