Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01821/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01821-14/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 

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DOUGLAS REAL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JALAL SOLTANIAN-ZADEH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2: 11-cv-1821 LKK AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants’ responses to his 

discovery requests. ECF No. 61. Defendants oppose the motion. ECF No. 62. 

The Discovery and Scheduling Order (“DSO”) was filed in this case on May 2, 2013. 

ECF No. 56. The DSO set a discovery deadline of August 23, 2013 with all discovery requests to 

be served not later than sixty days prior to that date. The dispositive motion deadline was set as 

January 15, 2014. On January 10, 2014, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment and, 

belatedly, for an extension of the discovery cut-off date. ECF No. 63. Defendants opposed that 

motion and moved to strike plaintiff’s evidence filed in support of his motion for summary 

judgment. ECF Nos. 66, 67. Defendants filed their summary judgment motion on January 15, 

2014. ECF No. 64. Plaintiff appears to have relied on his motion for partial summary judgment 

Case 2:11-cv-01821-TLN-AC Document 69 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 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 

2

and on a tardy request for an extension of time to complete discovery in place of filing an 

opposition to defendants’ dispositive motion. 

ALLEGATIONS OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT 

This action proceeds against defendant Soltanian-Zadeh and Tseng on plaintiff’s claims of 

inadequate medical care for a serious medical condition. Plaintiff suffers from levoconvex 

idiopathic scoliosis, a spinal deformity, a condition which causes plaintiff chronic pain that at 

times is almost unbearable. Over a fourteen-year period preceding the events at issue, plaintiff 

had received treatment and medication necessary for pain management. In November of 2010 

plaintiff was seen by defendant Dr. Soltanian-Zadeh, who did not listen to plaintiff’s complaints 

and refused to provide any pain management. Dr. Soltanian-Zadeh opined without medical 

evidence that plaintiff’s “whole problem is from improper stretching,” and refusied to prescribe 

the necessary medications that had been provided by other doctors in the past. After submitting a 

grievance regarding his unmet medical needs, plaintiff was seen by defendant Dr. Tseng. Dr. 

Tseng took no action to relieve plaintiff’s suffering. Although Tseng was aware of plaintiff’s 

condition and had previously prescribed pain medications for him, on this occasion Tseng failed 

to provide treatment. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and well as injunctive 

relief in the form of receipt of previously prescribed medications on an “as needed” basis.1 ECF 

No. 8. 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

 Plaintiff represents that defendants have altogether failed to provide responses to his 

discovery requests. ECF No. 61. Plaintiff first faults defendants’ counsel for refusing to serve 

him via his legal assistant. The issue of plaintiff’s address of record is addressed by separate 

order. The opinion of defendants’ counsel that plaintiff should not be served via an intermediary 

did not relieve defendants of the obligation to respond to discovery requests. 

The more serious issue is the timeliness of plaintiff’s discovery requests. In a letter dated 

July 20, 2013 and provided by both parties (ECF No. 61 at 8 and No. 62 at 15), defendant’s 

 

1

 Other defendants and a state law negligence claim have been previously dismissed from the first 

amended complaint. ECF Nos. 49, 53. 

Case 2:11-cv-01821-TLN-AC Document 69 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 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 

3

counsel informed plaintiff that he had received (1) plaintiff’s request for production of 

documents, set one; (2) request for production of documents, set two; (3) first set of 

interrogatories to defendant T. Seng; and (4) first set of interrogatories to defendant SoltanianZadeh. However, the letter states that the proof of service of the discovery showed the requests 

were served on June 27, 2013, beyond the deadline for service of discovery requests as set forth 

in the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order.2 As defendants point out, plaintiff had not filed 

or been granted an extension of time to serve the discovery. Defendants maintain that they were 

under no obligation to respond to untimely discovery requests. 

The scope of discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) is broad. Discovery may be 

obtained as to Aany nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party=s claim or defenseC

including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any documents or 

other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable 

matter.@ Id. Discovery may be sought of relevant information not admissible at trial “if the 

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. 

The court, however, may limit discovery if it “.... is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” or 

can be obtained from another source “that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less 

expensive”; or if the party who seeks discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the 

information by discovery....”; or if the proposed discovery is overly burdensome. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(2)(C)(i), (ii) and (iii)). 

 Plaintiff’s discovery requests were served well before the close of discovery, but are dated 

three days after they should have been served in order to comply with the court’s directive that 

requests be served at least 60 days prior to that deadline.3 The DSO did not specify a date certain 

for service of discovery requests, but directed service not later than 60 days prior to August 23, 

2013. Plaintiff’s proofs of service dated June 23, 2013, exactly two calendar months but slightly 

 

2

 June 27, 2013, is the date provided on the proofs of service of the discovery requests. 

Defendants represent, however that the envelopes in which the requests were postmarked July 8, 

2013 and were mailed from an inmate incarcerated at a different prison than plaintiff. 

3

 The requests were mailed out to defense counsel by a third party two weeks short of the required 

60 day period. Whether the proof of service date or the postmark date is used as the effective 

service date, the delay was slight. 

Case 2:11-cv-01821-TLN-AC Document 69 Filed 02/20/14 Page 3 of 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 

4

more than 60 days prior to August 23. The motion to compel was filed relatively promptly after 

the dispute arose -- less than a month after the date of defendants’ letter declining to produce 

responses. These facts reflect reasonable diligence on plaintiff’s part. Although unrepresented 

parties are expected “to follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants,” King v. 

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 576 (9th Cir. 1987), 4 inflexible enforcement of the scheduling order on 

these facts would have the draconian effect of depriving plaintiff of all discovery. Such a result is 

inconsistent with the liberality due the pro se plaintiff. Defendants will therefore be directed to 

provide plaintiff with responses to his discovery requests and provide proof of having done so 

within 45 days of the filing of this order. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be 

vacated without prejudice to notice of its renewal within thirty days of defendants having served 

plaintiff with their discovery responses. Fed R. Civ. P. 56(d). 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses from defendants (ECF No. 61) is 

granted, discovery is re-opened for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiff responses to his 

previously-propounded discovery requests; 

2. Defendants must provide their responses to plaintiff’s previously served discovery 

requests within forty-five (45) days of the date of this order; 

 3. To the extent that plaintiff seeks to extend the discovery cut-off date by his motion for 

partial summary judgment and to extend the discovery cut-off date (ECF No. 63), that motion is 

denied as moot; 

 4. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 63) is vacated from the 

court’s calendar without prejudice to its modification and renewal once defendants’ discovery 

responses have been served upon him; 

 5. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 64) is vacated from the court’s 

calendar pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) without prejudice and subject to being re-noticed upon 

//// 

 

4

 Overruled in part on another ground by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 

2012). 

Case 2:11-cv-01821-TLN-AC Document 69 Filed 02/20/14 Page 4 of 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 

5

the filing, within forty-five days, of proof of service of defendants’ discovery responses upon 

plaintiff. 

DATED: February 20, 2014 

 

Case 2:11-cv-01821-TLN-AC Document 69 Filed 02/20/14 Page 5 of 5