Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-04298/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-04298-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISON

VINCENT BRUCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL SAYRE, et. al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-4298-NJV (PR) 

ORDER 

Dkt. Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This action continues against two defendants and concerns their treatment of plaintiff’s 

shoulder and back pain. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on November 10, 2015. 

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition; however, he has filed several motions to compel discovery 

and a motion to appoint a medical expert.

A. Motions to Compel

A party may bring a motion to compel discovery when another party has failed to respond 

or respond adequately to a discovery request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). A party may “obtain 

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

1. Motion to Compel the Production of Documents (Docket No. 27)

Plaintiff moves the court to compel defendants to respond to seven document requests:

1. Any and all documents that refer to or relate to policies, procedures, and practices in 

effect for health care at Pelican Bay State Prison during the time the defendants 

provided health care to plaintiff, including [plaintiff requests approximately 43 

Case 1:14-cv-04298-NJV Document 32 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

chapters of various regulations and procedures];

2. Any and all medical records relating to the health care provided by defendants, 

including any members of the primary care team, to plaintiff from July 1, 2010, until 

the present;

3. Any and all documents identified by defendants Ikegbu and Adam in response to 

interrogatories;

4. Any and all documents directed to health care providers at Pelican Bay State Prison 

regarding the health care to be provided to inmate-patients, and generated by health 

care supervisors, including Michael Sayre and Maureen McClean;

5. Any and all grievances and complaints lodged against defendants alleging inadequate 

health care for pain or musculoskeletal condition that was filed in the last five years;

6. Any and all documents used by defendant Ikegbu in setting the amount and frequency 

of plaintiff’s pain medication dosages and in deciding not to refer plaintiff to a 

specialist; and

7. Any and all documents used by defendant Adam in setting the amount and frequency 

of plaintiff’s pain medication dosages and in deciding not to refer plaintiff to a 

specialist.

With respect to requests 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7, defendants replied that they would provide the 

documents requested, but noted that plaintiff would need to pay copying costs because the 

documents total more than 1,000 pages. Defendants noted that plaintiff could also obtain the 

regulations and policies of the prison as requested in request 1, from the CDCR. Defendants also 

argued that the more than 40 chapters requested were over-broad and irrelevant. Defendants also 

noted that the documents plaintiff seeks in requests 4, 6 and 7 would be included with his medical 

records from request 2.

The motion to compel requests 4, 6 and 7 is denied because the requested documents are 

included in defendants’ response to request 2. To the extent that request 4 seeks information 

regarding the medical treatment of other prisoners, any such request is denied as over-broad, 

irrelevant, and they may contain the confidential medical information of other inmates.

Case 1:14-cv-04298-NJV Document 32 Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff argues that he is indigent and should not have to pay for copying costs. Plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis in this case indicated that in 2014 he had average deposits 

for the most recent six-month period of $47.50 and an average balance for the most recent sixmonth period of $121.35. Docket No. 2. Plaintiff filed another civil rights action against Ikegbu 

and other medical staff in 2015. Bruce v. Chaiken, Case No. 15-cv-0960-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.). 

In his application to proceed in forma pauperis in that case plaintiff had average deposits for the 

most recent six-month period of $45.24 and an average balance for the most recent six-month 

period of $80.35. Plaintiff now argues that he is completely indigent and cannot afford any 

copying costs.

Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently show that request 1 is not over-broad and irrelevant. He 

has not identified the specific subjects of the 40 chapters of regulations he seeks to be produced

and how they are pertinent to his case. Because these materials could be viewed independently by 

plaintiff, the motion to compel this request is denied. If plaintiff wishes to pay defendants for the 

copying costs, he may contact defendants to provide the money and, if he pays it, defendants shall 

provide the information.

With respect to request 2, approximately 250 pages of plaintiff’s medical records were 

already provided to plaintiff with the motion for summary judgment in November 2015. Yet, 

because plaintiff’s medical record is highly relevant to this action, defendants are ordered to 

provide plaintiff a copy of the medical record from July 1, 2010, until the filing of the complaint 

that relates to the subject matter of this action. Because plaintiff cannot afford these copying 

costs, the court orders defendant to provide them free of charge.1

 Defendants may choose, as 

plaintiff requests as an option, to allow plaintiff to examine the documents and designate which 

documents he requires copies of. Plaintiff is also reminded to review the 250 pages of medical 

exhibits he has already been provided, which the court will resend to plaintiff.

 1 In cases such as this, cost shifting may be ordered if it is determined that the documents are 

subject to production and plaintiff has no ability to obtain the copies due to indigency and pro se 

status. See e.g. Haney v. Adams, No. 07-cv-1104-AWI-SMS, 2012 WL 6097084, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 

Dec. 7, 2012); Ransom v. Johnson, No. 05–cv–00086–OWW–GSA PC, 2010 WL 503128, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2010).

Case 1:14-cv-04298-NJV Document 32 Filed 07/05/16 Page 3 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Request 3, that defendants provide all documents identified in response to interrogatories,

is denied as vague because plaintiff has failed to specify any documents that were identified in 

response to interrogatories. Request 5, that seeks defendants to provide any and all grievances and 

complaints lodged against defendants alleging inadequate health care for pain or musculoskeletal 

conditions in the last five years, is denied. The request is over-broad, irrelevant and unduly 

burdensome. It concerns information that is separate from plaintiff’s medical treatment in this 

case and may contain the confidential medical information of other inmates.

2. Motion to Compel Admission Requests (Docket No. 28)

Plaintiff submitted 52 requests for admissions from defendants. Defendants provided 

answers to all the requests. Plaintiff does not describe how the answers were inadequate; rather,

he describes why this information is important to his case. It appears that plaintiff is not satisfied 

with defendants’ answers. The court has reviewed defendants’ responses and finds they were 

proper. The motion to compel is denied.

3. Motion to Compel Interrogatories (Docket No. 29)

Rule 33 defines the parameters of discovery via interrogatories. Parties are required to 

seek leave of court to propound more than twenty-five interrogatories on another party. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 33(a)(1). Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted consistent with Rule 

26(b)(1) and (2). Id. Rule 26 limits parties to discovery requests that are relevant to the subject 

matter involved in the pending action, or reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible 

evidence. Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 54 F.3d 1422 (9th Cir. 1995), citing Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(1). 

Notwithstanding the general right to discovery, courts have the power to limit the frequency and 

extent of any discovery method, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b) & (c), and may limit discovery “to protect 

a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” Fed. 

R. Civ. Pro. 26(c).

Plaintiff sent more than twenty-five interrogatories, including discrete subparts, as 

discussed in Rule 33. Defendants only answered the first twenty-five for each party in the case. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to all the interrogatories is denied. The court has reviewed 

the interrogatories and finds many of plaintiff’s questions are answered in the exhibits to the 

Case 1:14-cv-04298-NJV Document 32 Filed 07/05/16 Page 4 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

summary judgment motion filed two months prior to this motion to compel. For example, the 

curriculum vitae of the defendants are included in the motion for summary judgment. Many other 

interrogatories are over-broad, irrelevant and unduly burdensome. For example, plaintiff seeks to 

know what witnesses will be called at trial and who will submit a declaration for a dispositive 

motion. As noted, the motion for summary judgment was filed before this motion to compel and 

answers many of plaintiff’s questions.

For all these reasons the motion to compel is denied. However, plaintiff will be provided 

an opportunity to submit new interrogatories to defendants within twenty-one days. Plaintiff must 

follow the Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the amount he may serve. He should also 

focus on what is relevant to the medical care provided by defendants in this case.

B. Motion to Appoint a Medical Expert (Docket No. 30)

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for the appointment of a medical expert witness. Federal 

Rule of Evidence 706 authorizes the appointment of a neutral expert witness, with expenses shared 

by the parties. The appointment of an independent expert witness pursuant to Rule 706 is within 

the court's discretion, Walker v. American Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 

1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999), and may be appropriate when “scientific, technical, or other 

specialized knowledge will assist the trier-of-fact to understand the evidence or decide a fact in 

issue,” Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358-59 (7th Cir. 1997). However, the statute 

authorizing plaintiff's in forma pauperis status does not authorize the expenditure of public funds 

for expert witnesses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(expenditure of public funds on behalf of indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by 

Congress). The federal courts have uniformly held that an indigent prisoner litigant must bear his 

own costs of litigation, including witnesses. Id. at 211 (in forma pauperis statute does not 

authorize waiver of fees for an indigent's witnesses).

To the extent that plaintiff is seeking to have the court appoint an expert witness to aid his 

case, that request is denied pursuant to the authority cited above. To the extent plaintiff is seeking 

a neutral expert, the court does not find that at this time the issues in this case are complicated 

such that the testimony of a neutral expert would be warranted. Neither plaintiff’s medical 

Case 1:14-cv-04298-NJV Document 32 Filed 07/05/16 Page 5 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

condition nor the legal issues involved are overly complex. The motion is denied. 

C. Miscellaneous Matters

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was filed on November 10, 2015, but plaintiff 

has still not filed an opposition. Plaintiff will be provided twenty-eight days from service of this 

order to file an opposition. Even though plaintiff will be receiving additional discovery he still 

must file an opposition. It has been seven months since the summary judgment motion was filed, 

which contained hundreds of pages of medical records. Plaintiff will be permitted to file a 

supplemental opposition after he receives additional discovery.

D. Conclusion

1. The motion to compel production of documents (Docket No. 27) is DENIED in 

part as discussed above. Within twenty-one days defendants are ordered to provide plaintiff a 

copy of the medical record from July 1, 2010, until the filing of the complaint that relates to the 

subject matter of this action. Defendants may choose to allow plaintiff to examine the documents 

and designate which ones he requires copies of. 

2. The motion to compel admissions (Docket No. 28) is DENIED.

3. The motion to compel interrogatories (Docket No. 29) is DENIED without 

prejudice as discussed above.

4. The motion to appoint a medical expert (Docket No. 30) is DENIED.

2

5. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension to file an opposition (Docket No. 26) is 

GRANTED in part. Plaintiff must file an opposition to summary judgment within twenty-eight 

days of service of this order. He may file a supplemental opposition after receiving more 

discovery.

 2 To the extent plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction, the motion is denied. The two defendants 

in this case work at Pelican Bay State Prison but plaintiff is now incarcerated at Kern Valley State 

Prison. The court cannot enforce an injunction against Kern Valley State Prison, because the court 

does not have personal jurisdiction over any defendant related to that entity. See In re Estate of 

Ferdinand Marcos, 94 F.3d 539, 545 (9th Cir. 1996). If plaintiff seeks injunctive relief regarding 

his current medical treatment he should file a case in the Eastern District of California where the 

prison is located. 

Case 1:14-cv-04298-NJV Document 32 Filed 07/05/16 Page 6 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

6. The Clerk shall send to plaintiff a copy of the motion for summary judgment 

(Docket No. 22) including all the exhibits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2016

________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:14-cv-04298-NJV Document 32 Filed 07/05/16 Page 7 of 7