Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225-24/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

Plaintiff William Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint, filed on March 14, 2013, for violation of the Eighth Amendment and negligence 

against numerous Defendants.1Pursuant to Court order, discovery was to be completed by September 

29, 2014.

On September 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed numerous motions to compel, including the instant 

motion. Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant Alade to provide further responses to his First Set of 

Interrogatories, Numbers 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11.

 

1 On September 10, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint naming Doe Defendants.

WILBUR ATCHERLEY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12cv00225 LJO DLB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL DEFENDANT ALADE TO PROVIDE 

FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 

5, 6, 8, 9 AND 11

(Document 115)

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 156 Filed 11/12/14 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

Defendant Alade opposed the motion on October 6, 2014, and Plaintiff filed his reply on 

October 20, 2014. The motion is submitted for decision pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

According to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Defendant Alade treated Plaintiff for a 

period of time in 2010 and 2011. He performed arthroscopic surgery on Plaintiff’s left knee on 

January 18, 2011, and ordered that Plaintiff use a wheelchair for two weeks and that his bandages be 

kept clean and dry until his next appointment. Plaintiff alleges that just prior to the surgery, he told 

Defendant Alade of a prior infection, and Defendant Alade said that he would order antibiotics for 

Plaintiff after surgery. However, Defendant Alade forgot to do so.

Defendant Alade performed a second surgery on Plaintiff’s left knee on February 11, 2011, to 

clean out an infection caused by poor wound care. 

The Court found that Plaintiff stated a claim for medical negligence against Defendant Alade 

based on his alleged failure to prescribe antibiotics after the first surgery. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel 

bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, No. 

CIV S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 

6703958, at *3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 

2010); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 

27, 2008). This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the 

subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is 

relevant and why the responding party=s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at 

*1; Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at 

*4. However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding 

these procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigation; therefore, to the extent possible, 

the Court endeavors to resolve his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 156 Filed 11/12/14 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

F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th 

Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 

An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b), and an 

interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to 

fact or the application of law to fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2) (quotation marks omitted). Parties are 

obligated to respond to interrogatories to the fullest extent possible under oath, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler, 

650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981). The responding party shall use common sense and reason. E.g., 

Collins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 06-2466-CM-DJW, 2008 WL 1924935, *8 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 

2008).

DISCUSSION

Interrogatory Number 5

Interrogatory

Plaintiff had arthroscopic surgery of his left knee on January 18, 2011. Based on your 

experience and training, approximately how long after the surgery would you expect a patient, 

including Plaintiff, to have leakage or drainage from the wound, any part of the wound?

Response 

Responding party objects on the grounds that this interrogatory calls for speculation, is compound, 

and seeks expert witness testimony in violation of the timing requirements found within the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure 26.

Analysis

For all of the interrogatories at issue, Plaintiff contends that he requests information from 

Defendant Alade as a Defendant in this action who provided treatment, rather than as an expert witness. 

Plaintiff believes that the interrogatories seek Defendant Alade’s “first-hand knowledge of that treatment, 

the reasons for that treatment, and the plaintiff’s condition both before and after the two surgeries.” ECF 

No. 115, at 3. Plaintiff argues that during his treatment, Defendant Alade “formed opinions” about 

Plaintiff’s condition, and that he should be able to explore those opinions.” ECF No. 115, at 5.

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 156 Filed 11/12/14 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

In his opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is asking him to speculate “as to not only 

plaintiff’s wound leakage, but also upon every patient, regardless of background, or other factors, who 

might have the same or similar surgery.” ECF No. 133, at 5. Defendant also argues that the question calls 

for expert testimony because it does not ask for a response based on Defendant’s percipient knowledge of 

the facts of this case, but instead seeks a generalized medical inquiry.

Defendant’s objections are without merit. While Plaintiff may use the words “expertise and 

training,” his question is aimed at his own treatment, and Defendant has the requisite knowledge to respond 

to the question. Indeed, in his motion, Plaintiff rephrases the question as, “how long after the surgery 

[would he] expect the plaintiff’s wound to leak or drain?” ECF No. 115, at 4. 

Moreover, the interrogatory does not call for speculation. It simply calls for a “what is typical” 

response. As noted above, an interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or 

contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2).

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory Number 5 is GRANTED. 

Defendant must provide a further response as the question relates to Plaintiff and his treatment.

Interrogatory Number 6

Interrogatory

Based on your training and experience, what would be the appropriate treatment for a patient, 

including plaintiff, who in less than 48 hours of surgery had a stitch pulled out or that fell out of one of the 

incision ports alleged in plaintiff’s First Amended Compliant (FAC) (i.e., should the stitch have been 

replaced, should a doctor have been consulted, should a paper stitch have been used instead)?

Response

Objection. Responding party objects on the grounds that this interrogatory calls for speculation, is 

compound, and seeks expert witness testimony in violation of the timing requirements found within the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26.

Analysis

The parties set forth the same arguments as above, and for the same reasons, the Court finds that 

Defendant’s objections are not proper. In his opposition, Plaintiff rephrases the question as requesting “the 

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 156 Filed 11/12/14 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

appropriate treatment for the plaintiff who had a stitch pulled out within 48 hours of” Defendant Alade 

placing the stitch. ECF No. 115, at 4.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory Number 6 is GRANTED, and 

Defendant must provide a further response as the question relates to Plaintiff and his treatment.

Interrogatory Number 8

Interrogatory

Based on your training and experience, if the claims made by plaintiff in his FAC are true, would 

you say that plaintiff received appropriate medical care for his condition and medical complaints or not. 

Please esplain [sic] your answer either way.

Response

Objection. Responding party objects on the grounds that this interrogatory calls for speculation, is 

compound, is an incomplete hypothetical, and seeks expert witness testimony in violation of the timing 

requirements found within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26.

Analysis

Unlike Numbers 5 and 6, Number 8 calls for an expert opinion. The interrogatory would require 

Defendant Alade to offer his expert opinion as to the appropriateness of care rendered by all Defendants. 

It would require Defendant Alade to go beyond his knowledge of his treatment of Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to Interrogatory Number 8 is DENIED.

Interrogatory Number 9

Interrogatory

If a patient had arthroscopic surgery on his knee on January 18, 2011 and was complaining nine 

days later on January 27, 2011 of increased leakage and drainage with chills and vomiting, in your 

professional judgment, what would that indicate to you? Please describe your answer in as much detail as 

possible.

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 156 Filed 11/12/14 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

Response

Responding party objects on the grounds that this interrogatory calls for speculation, is compound, 

is an incomplete hypothetical, and seeks expert witness testimony in violation of the timing requirements 

found within the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

Analysis

Defendant’s objections are without merit. Again, the question is related to Defendant Alade’s 

treatment of Plaintiff and his understanding of the standard of care. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory Number 9 is GRANTED and 

Defendant Alade shall provide a further response as the question relates to Plaintiff and his treatment.

Interrogatory Number 11

Interrogatory

Based on your training and experience and after reviewing your records of the patient and after the 

surgery you performed on plaintiff on February 11, 2011 and after your examination of plaintiff after he 

was admitted to San Joaquin Community Hospital and after considering the allegations made in the 

complaint are you able to say with any degree of certainty how or when plaintiff became infected with 

staph?

Response

Objection. Responding party objects on the grounds that this interrogatory calls for speculation, is 

compound, is an incomplete hypothetical and seeks expert witness testimony in violation of the timing 

requirements found within Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26. This interrogatory further assumes facts 

not in evidence (i.e., that responding part has made review of records in connection with this case.)

Analysis

Defendant’s objections are again without merit. Again, the question is related to Defendant 

Alade’s treatment of Plaintiff and requests an opinion based on his treatment. The question simply 

requires a “yes” or “no” answer.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory Number 11 is GRANTED and 

Defendant Alade shall provide a further response as the question relates to Plaintiff and his treatment.

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 156 Filed 11/12/14 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

ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant Alade 

SHALL provide further responses to Interrogatories 5, 6, 9 and 11 within thirty (30) days of the date of 

service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 11, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 156 Filed 11/12/14 Page 7 of 7