Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01695/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01695-14/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

I. Background

Plaintiff Walter Rapalo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants 

Lopez, Schaeffer (erroneously sued as “Schaffer”), and Manasrah for deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On July 28, 2015, the magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s motion to propound additional 

interrogatories, (ECF No. 70), and denied Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline, (ECF 

No. 71). Plaintiff requested leave to serve 50 additional interrogatories on Defendants Lopez and 

Schaffer, but the magistrate judge found Plaintiff had not shown any sufficient basis for deviating 

from the presumptive limit on interrogatories established in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a). 

(ECF No. 70, p. 6.) Plaintiff argued that he needed the additional interrogatories to obtain information 

WALTER RAPALO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S. LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01695-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION BY DISTRICT COURT OF 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULINGS (ECF NOS. 70 

AND 71)

(ECF No. 85)

Case 1:11-cv-01695-LJO-BAM Document 108 Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 4
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 why there was a delay or denial in his medical treatment, or why the Defendants think there was no 

delay or denial. (Id. at 2.) After carefully evaluating the interrogatories already propounded, the 

magistrate judge found that Plaintiff had already asked for this information in a variety of 

interrogatories, and received substantive responses from the Defendants. (ECF No. 70, p. 6.) Plaintiff 

also showed no indication that there were additional interrogatories that would alter Defendants’ 

responses or somehow provided additional information regarding Defendants’ decisions. (Id.) In a 

separate order, the magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery deadline, finding 

it vague and unsupported. (ECF No. 71.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s 

orders. (ECF No. 85.) Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, (ECF Nos. 88, 89), 

and Plaintiff replied, (ECF No. 91). Plaintiff also filed a supplement to his motion. (ECF No. 92.) The 

motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there 

is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 

& Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). 

Additionally, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party 

must show what “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were 

not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j).

B. Analysis

Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge erred in noting in her order that he did not suggest 

any interrogatories for the Court’s consideration. (ECF No. 70, p. 6.) He argues that the magistrate 

judge should have considered the interrogatories he propounded on Defendants that they objected to as 

exceeding the number permitted by Rule 33, which were attached to his motion as exhibits, (ECF No. 

56, pp. 11-41). There are 41 such interrogatories in Plaintiff’s attachments. Plaintiff argues that these 

questions are relevant to the issues of delay and denial of courses of treatment. (ECF No. 85, p. 6.) He 

Case 1:11-cv-01695-LJO-BAM Document 108 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 4
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

states that his first 25 interrogatories were used to establish that Defendants performed x-rays and 

MRI, but Defendants have, for example, not explained why they waited to do the MRI, and what 

course of treatment the MRI findings indicated. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff argues that he needs the additional 

interrogatories to ask these additional questions, and other questions expanding on each of his medical 

visits. (Id. at 6.) 

Plaintiff has not provided sufficient grounds for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order 

here. Several of Plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories are repetitive of interrogatories he has already 

asked. The magistrate judge noted that Plaintiff has already asked why there was a delay or denial in 

his medical treatment, and Defendants essentially responded that they did not delay or deny any 

appropriate care or treatment. Yet Plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories again ask Defendants why they 

delayed or denied treatments, with very little variation from his prior questions. For example, the 

magistrate judge noted that Plaintiff specifically asked why, despite his long-standing complaints of 

back pain, Defendants delayed ordering an MRI until December 2010, and that Defendants answered 

that there was no delay in medically appropriate care and treatment. (ECF No. 70, p. 3.) Despite this 

question being answered, Plaintiff proposes an interrogatory to Defendants asking why, despite his 

complaints of chronic back pain and an MRI showing a lumbar spine problem, Defendants did not 

refer Plaintiff for an MRI until December 2010. (ECF No. 56, p. 21.) Several of Plaintiff’s other 

proposed interrogatories are similarly redundant of his prior interrogatories. As the magistrate judge 

found, there is no indication here that these additional interrogatories would somehow alter 

Defendants’ responses or provide additional relevant information.

Other interrogatories proposed by Plaintiff are unrelated to the issues of delay or denial of 

treatment, and many of them ask about information which Plaintiff already has available to him in his 

medical records. For example, Plaintiff asks, according to his medical file, how many progress notes

and referrals were made for him during certain periods, whether certain types of referrals, 

consultations, or treatments were recommended for him, and what treatments or care he received. 

Additional proposed interrogatories are not proper interrogatories in that they merely ask Defendants 

to admit some fact is true. In sum, Plaintiff has not shown that the magistrate judge erred in finding 

that he did not show any basis for deviating from the limit on interrogatories set forth in Rule 33(a).

Case 1:11-cv-01695-LJO-BAM Document 108 Filed 03/08/16 Page 3 of 4
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

Regarding Plaintiff’s request to modify the scheduling order, he argues that he needs a 

discovery extension because he filed a motion to propound additional discoveries. (ECF No. 85, p. 7.) 

He states that because he has shown the magistrate judge’s order denying his request to propound 

additional discovery must be set aside, he has shown good cause to modify the scheduling order. The 

Court disagrees; Plaintiff has not shown any error in the magistrate judge’s prior orders, nor has he 

provided any support, much less good cause, for extending the discovery schedule here. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(b)(4) (requiring good cause be shown to modify a scheduling order).

Finally, Plaintiff’s supplement provides no grounds for reconsideration of the prior orders here.

In the supplement, Plaintiff provides an order from an unrelated case pending in the Central District of 

California, in which that court allowed the plaintiff in that matter to propound additional 

interrogatories on the defendants. (ECF No. 92, pp. 4-5.) Plaintiff contends that this Court should grant 

his motion for reconsideration in the interest of uniformity among Ninth Circuit district courts. (Id. at 

1-2.) The order by that Central District of California court specifically states that it was made under 

the circumstances of that specific matter, including the interrogatories propounded and objections 

made to them by the defendants in that case. There is nothing in that order which makes it persuasive 

under the circumstances of this case before this Court. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s 

orders denying his motion for leave to propound additional interrogatories and for an extension of the 

discovery deadline, (ECF No. 85), is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01695-LJO-BAM Document 108 Filed 03/08/16 Page 4 of 4