Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01479/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01479-10/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

 Plaintiff appended a certificate of service attesting to service by mail on the Deputy 1

Attorney General on April 18, 2008; in addition, counsel received also received notice of

electronic filing through the court’s CM/ECF docketing program.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN JOSEPH STOLTIE,

Plaintiff, No. 2:07cv1479-MCE-JFM (PC)

vs.

ANA SOARES, M.D., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 25, 2008, plaintiff filed a second motion to amend the

complaint. Plaintiff has provided a proposed amended complaint. Defendants have not filed an

opposition to this motion.1

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to add MTA B. Gooselaw as a defendant. Plaintiff

alleges MTA Gooselaw injected plaintiff with psychotropic medications without plaintiff’s

consent on February 14, 2007. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion to amend will be

granted. Plaintiff will be directed to provide the appropriate forms to serve defendant Gooselaw. 

Case 2:07-cv-01479-MCE -JFM Document 51 Filed 06/25/08 Page 1 of 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

2

Those defendants who have previously answered will be directed to either file an amended

answer or notify the court they intend to rest on their January 16, 2008 answer.

On May 23, 2008, plaintiff also filed a motion to compel discovery. Plaintiff

seeks an order compelling defendants to provide those documents they agreed to make available

for plaintiff’s inspection and copying which have not, to date, been provided. Specifically,

plaintiff seeks the documents defendants state they have made available to plaintiff: requests for

production nos. 11 through 14. Plaintiff, however, contends he has not received said documents.

Plaintiff has provided evidence that his request to review his mental health records and medical

records was denied by the treatment team on May 1, 2008. (Pl.’s Reply, Ex. A.) The disposition

note reads “[b]elieved that such copies would interfere with treatment.” (Id.) Plaintiff also seeks

an order compelling defendants to answer interrogatories propounded one month prior to the

discovery deadline. 

On May 23, 2008, plaintiff filed a second request for extension of time in which

to conduct discovery. Plaintiff contends he needs more time to obtain defendants’ answers to his

interrogatories propounded one month prior to the discovery deadline and will need more time to

review the additional documents defendants provide (if any) and determine whether he needs to

seek additional discovery.

Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery claiming they have

already provided all documents in response to plaintiff’s request for production of documents and

contend plaintiff’s interrogatories were untimely because they were not served 60 days prior to

the discovery deadline as required by this court’s scheduling order. 

Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 11 sought 

 Copies of all reports and orders written by defendants; A. Soares,

D. Bennett, L. Terry, J. Halloway, and J. Rayfield, pertaining to the

placement of the plaintiff Brian J. Stoltie in five point safety

restraints on February 14, 2007.

Defendants’ response stated:

Case 2:07-cv-01479-MCE -JFM Document 51 Filed 06/25/08 Page 2 of 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

3

Defendants object to plaintiff’s request No. 11 on the grounds that

the document and records requested are equally available to

plaintiff. Defendants also object on the grounds that the phrase

“pertaining to the placement of the Plaintiff Brian J. Stoltie in five

point safety restraints on February 14, 2007,” is vague and

ambiguous. Without waiving the stated objections, defendants

supplement their response to Request No. 11 and provide plaintiff

with a Physician’s Order dated February 14, 2007, that is

responsive to this request.

(Opp’n, Ex. B at 6.) 

Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 12 sought:

A list of the names of the other knowledgeable or responsible

persons, such as, all staff working on or required to respond to Q-3

unit for an emergency situation on February 14, 2007.

Defendants’ response stated:

Defendants object to plaintiff’s request No. 12 on the grounds that

the documents and records requested are equally available to the

plaintiff. Defendants also object on the grounds that the request is

irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence, and is over broad, vague and ambiguous. Without

waiving the stated objections, and to the extent that such

documents and records exist that are responsive to this request,

defendants will make available for inspection and copying those

documents and records that are responsive to this request.

(Opp’n, Ex. B at 7.)

In plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 13, plaintiff sought:

Copies of all medication administration records (MARS) from

January 09, 2007 through March 31, 2007.

Defendants’ response stated:

Defendants supplement their response to request No. 13 and object

to plaintiff’s request No. 13 on the ground that the plaintiff’s

individual (MARS) records are equally available to plaintiff. 

Defendants also object on the grounds that the request is irrelevant

and over broad, and seeks documents that may contain privileged

medical information and other privileged information relating to

other patients or inmates that is not relevant to this action. Without

waiving the stated objections, the documents and records requested

are contained in plaintiff’s inmate medical file. Defendants will

make available for inspection and copying plaintiff’s medical file

for inspection and copying.

Case 2:07-cv-01479-MCE -JFM Document 51 Filed 06/25/08 Page 3 of 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

4

(Opp’n, Ex. B, at 7.)

In plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 14, plaintiff sought

Copies of all psychiatrist[s] on duty (P.O.D.) Jane Does’ notes and

orders the night of February 13, 2007 in regards to plaintiff Brian J.

Stoltie’s treatment in California Medical Facility B-1 Clinic.

Defendants’ response stated:

Defendants object to plaintiff’s request No. 14 on the grounds that

the request is duplicative and irrelevant, and not likely to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence, and is over broad, vague, and

ambiguous. Defendants also object on the grounds that the request

seeks documents that may contain privileged medical information

and other privileged information relating to other patients or

inmates that is not relevant to this action. Without waiving the

stated objections, to the extent that defendants possess documents

and records that are responsive to this request, defendants will

make available for inspection and copying those documents and

records that only concern the plaintiff that are responsive to this

request, and that are not privileged from disclosure by law.

(Opp’n, Ex. B at 7-8.)

No privilege log was provided for any of the responses at issue. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(5)(A).

While defendants contend they may not be required to produce documents

previously produced, plaintiff contends he did not receive said documents or access to said

documents, and plaintiff has rebutted defendants’ position by producing evidence that his request

to review his own mental health records and medical file was denied. Plaintiff has an absolute

right to inspect his medical records. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 123110. Defendants have not

offered any evidence to demonstrate plaintiff has been provided access to these files.

Good cause appearing, defendants will be ordered to ensure plaintiff is granted

access to review his mental health records and medical file, with sufficient time to accomplish

his review and access to a photocopy machine to make necessary copies. To the extent that any

document identified in requests Nos. 11, 13 and 14 may not be located within plaintiff’s medical

or mental health records, defendants will be required to make those documents available as well. 

Case 2:07-cv-01479-MCE -JFM Document 51 Filed 06/25/08 Page 4 of 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

5

Defendants are only required to make available those records specifically related to plaintiff, not

to any other inmate. Defendants shall file a declaration confirming the dates and times plaintiff

was granted access to review his mental health records and medical file within ten days from the

last day plaintiff accomplishes said review. 

Plaintiff’s request to compel production in response to request No. 12 is denied. 

Request No. 12 is more appropriately sought by interrogatory as it seeks a list of names. 

In light of this order partially granting plaintiff’s motion to compel, as well as

allowing plaintiff to proceed with his amended complaint that names a new defendant, plaintiff’s

request to extend the discovery period will be granted. The court will vacate the January 25,

2008 scheduling order. Discovery will now close September 12, 2008. Once service of process

is executed on defendant Gooselaw, the court will issue a revised scheduling order. Defendants

will be directed to answer the interrogatories propounded April 18, 2008 within thirty days. 

Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that no further extension of the discovery period will be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s April 25, 2008 motion to amend (docket no. 43) is granted. This

action will proceed on plaintiff’s April 25, 2008 amended complaint. (Docket No. 44.)

2. Service is appropriate for defendant MTA B. Gooselaw. 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons,

an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed April 25, 2008.

4. Within twenty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Gooselaw; and 

d. Two copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed April 25, 2008.

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01479-MCE -JFM Document 51 Filed 06/25/08 Page 5 of 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

6

5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant Gooselaw and need not request

waiver of service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the

United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 

6. Within twenty days from the date of this order, those defendants who have

previously answered shall either file an amended answer or notify the court they intend to rest on

their January 16, 2008 answer.

7. Plaintiff’s May 23, 2008 motion for extension of time to conduct discovery

(docket no. 45) is granted. 

8. The January 25, 2008 scheduling order (docket no. 18) is vacated. The parties

may conduct discovery until September 12, 2008. Any motions necessary to compel discovery

shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34 or 36

shall be served not later than sixty days prior to September 12, 2008.

9. Defendants are directed to answer the interrogatories propounded April 18,

2008 within thirty days from the date of this order. 

10. Plaintiff’s May 23, 2008 motion to compel discovery (docket no. 46) is

partially granted.

a. Within thirty days from the date of this order, defendants shall ensure plaintiff

is granted access to review his mental health records and medical file, with sufficient time to

accomplish his review and access a photocopy machine to make copies. 

b. Defendants shall file a declaration confirming the dates and times plaintiff was

granted access to review his mental health records and medical file within ten days from the last

day plaintiff accomplishes said review.

c. To the extent that any document identified in requests Nos. 11, 13 and 14 may

not be located within plaintiff’s medical or mental health records, defendants shall make those

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01479-MCE -JFM Document 51 Filed 06/25/08 Page 6 of 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

7

documents available as well. Defendants are only required to make available those records

specifically related to plaintiff, not to any other inmate. 

d. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production in response to request No. 12 is

denied. 

DATED: June 24, 2008.

/001; stol1479.mta2

Case 2:07-cv-01479-MCE -JFM Document 51 Filed 06/25/08 Page 7 of 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

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN JOSEPH STOLTIE,

Plaintiff, No. 2:07cv1479-MCE-JFM (PC)

vs.

ANA SOARES, M.D., et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-01479-MCE -JFM Document 51 Filed 06/25/08 Page 8 of 8