Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00492/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00492-4/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

TION ALONZO GRIMMETT HILL, 

SR,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. YOUSSEF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00492-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL 

AND DENYING HIS MOTION TO 

COMPEL AND MOTION TO SHORTEN 

TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

ECF Nos. 25, 26, & 28

Plaintiff brings this action alleging that the named defendants violated his Eighth 

Amendment rights by failing to provide him with adequate medical care. Now pending are his 

motion for leave to file a motion to compel, ECF No. 25, the motion to compel itself, ECF No. 

26, and a motion to shorten the time to file dispositive motions, ECF No. 28. I will grant his 

motion for leave to file a motion to compel and, for the reasons stated below, deny the other two 

motions.

Case 2:23-cv-00492-DJC-JDP Document 31 Filed 05/20/24 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

Motion to Compel

Plaintiff has moved to compel additional answers to four interrogatories he served on 

defendant Youssef. I will address each in turn.1

Interrogatory Number Eight requests: “[b]etween March 2022 [and] January 2023, 

IDENTIFY ALL Opthamologist (sic) who had “privileges” to operate on CDCR prisoners and the 

duration of each “privilege” for each doctor.” Youssef responded: 

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is 

vague and ambiguous as to “privileges,” and “operate,” overly 

broad, seeks information not related to the claim or defense of any 

party, and is unduly burdensome, as the institution does not track 

doctors who have “privileges” to operate on inmate/patients and the 

duration of such “privileges.” Based upon these objections, 

Defendant is unable to respond to this interrogatory.

ECF No. 27 at 4. In their opposition to the motion to compel, defendants state that they 

ultimately concluded that plaintiff was asking after a list of ophthalmologists with authorization 

to perform surgical operations on CDCR prisoners. Id. They go on to state that such information 

is not tracked by CDCR and, thus, answering this interrogatory would require an agency-wide 

investigation to determine every ophthalmologist that operated on a prisoner during the time 

period and then determine the length of their surgical authorizations. Id. The broad nature of the 

interrogatory, coupled with the fact that there is apparently no easy way to access or compile this 

information, convinces me that it is overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that defendants claim 

that the information is not tracked is false, ECF No. 26 at 10, but he offers no concrete evidence 

of that falsity. I also find that there is insufficient relevance between plaintiff’s claims and the 

information sought. Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to schedule necessary eye surgery and 

that defendant Nguyen declined to perform the surgery once he saw her. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. It 

seems likely that the number of available ophthalmologists has a bearing on scheduling, but 

plaintiff’s claims are not that defendants best attempts to schedule surgery were frustrated by a 

1 Defendants also argue that the motion to compel is untimely insofar as it was filed after 

the February 16, 2024 deadline set by my scheduling order. ECF No. 18 at 4. I agree. Given 

plaintiff’s pro se status, however, I have considered the substance of his motion to compel out an 

abundance of caution. 

Case 2:23-cv-00492-DJC-JDP Document 31 Filed 05/20/24 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

lack of providers. Rather, he alleges that they failed to follow CDCR policies and procedures and 

unnecessarily delayed scheduling the procedure. Id.

Interrogatory Number Ten requests: “[w]hen a specialist RECOMMENDS a sugery (sic) 

for other medical issues IDENTIFY the medical surgeries YOU, CDCR, and/or CCHCS seek a 

“second opinion.” ECF No. 27 at 5. Youssef responded:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous as to “other medical issue(s),” “medical surgeries,” and 

“second opinion,” argumentative, and seeks information not related 

to the claim or defense of any party. Without waiving any 

objections, Defendant responds as follows: Second opinions are 

sought on a case-by-case basis depending on the unique facts and 

circumstances of each medical condition surgery has been 

recommended to treat. Accordingly, there is no set list of “other 

medical issue(s)” where second opinions are always sought.

Id. The boilerplate objections notwithstanding, I find that defendant adequately answered this 

interrogatory. He states that second opinions are obtained on a case-by-case basis and, thus, there 

is no single, definitive answer to plaintiff’s interrogatory. I cannot compel more.

Interrogatory Number Eleven requests “[b]etween August 2018; through August 2023, 

IDENTIFY the prisoners, incarcerated person(s), YOU, CCHCS and/or CDCR sought a ‘second 

opinion’ CONTRARY TO DR. BONDS RECOMMENDING any/all eye surgeries.” Id. at 6.

Youssef responded:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is 

vague and ambiguous as to “prisoners,” “incarcerated person(s),” 

“second opinion,” “contrary,” and “eye surgeries,” assumes the 

truth of facts which are disputed, i.e., that Dr. Bonds recommended 

eye surgeries for other inmate/patients and Defendant, CCHCS, 

and/or CDCR sought a second opinion. The request also violates 

third-party privacy rights of non-party inmate/patients and is unduly 

burdensome. Defendant has no way of identifying inmate/patients 

for whom Dr. Bonds recommended surgery and Defendant, 

CCHCS, and/or CDCR sought a second opinion, other than 

reviewing each and every inmate’s medical records to determine 

whether Dr. Bonds treated them, recommended surgery, and 

whether a second opinion was sought. This would require the 

institution to search through hundreds of thousands, if not more, of 

medical records. Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will 

not respond to this request.

Id. at 7. I find defendants’ objections regarding third-party privacy and burden compelling. 

Other inmates have a privacy interest in their medical records and whether other inmates were 

Case 2:23-cv-00492-DJC-JDP Document 31 Filed 05/20/24 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

provided with constitutionally adequate care (or not) does not have any meaningful relevance to 

plaintiff’s claims about the adequacy of his medical care. 

Finally, Interrogatory Number Twelve requests: “CONTRARY TO DR. TAWANSY 

conducting surgery on Plaintiff in March 2022, how did DR. TAWANSY loose (sic) his 

“privileges” not to operate on Plaintiff in accordance to Dr. Bonds RECOMMENDATION(S) for 

a second RD surgery June 2022.” ECF No. 27 at 8. Youssef responded:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is 

vague and ambiguous as to “loose,” “privileges,” and “RD 

surgery,” argumentative, assumes the truth of facts which are 

disputed, i.e., that Dr. Tawansy conducted surgery on Plaintiff in 

March 2022 and that Dr. Bonds recommended a surgery in June 

2022, and seeks information not related to the claim or defense of 

any party. To the extent this request seeks information regarding 

the reason for why Dr. Tawansy lost his authorization to treat 

CDCR inmates, the request seeks information that violates Dr. 

Tawansy’s right to privacy. Without waiving any objections, 

Defendant responds as follows: On information and belief, Dr. 

Tawansy was the on-call and available ophthalmologist on January 

5, 2022, when Dr. Tawansy performed emergency surgery on 

Plaintiff. On information and belief, Dr. Tawansy lost 

authorization to treat California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation inmates on May 9, 2018. Based on the above thirdparty privacy objection, Defendant will not respond further to this 

request.

Id. at 8-9. This response is adequate. Dr. Tawansy is not a party to this case and, despite reading 

the motion to compel several times, I cannot tell why the rationale for terminating his 

authorization is relevant to plaintiff’s claims that the other defendants failed to schedule or 

perform his surgery. In light of that lack of apparent relevance, I credit defendants’ argument that 

Tawansy has a privacy interest in the circumstances surrounding CDCR’s decision not to 

continue his authorization to treat inmates. 

Given that I am not compelling further responses from defendants, I also find it 

inappropriate to assess any discovery sanctions against them, as plaintiff requests.

Motion to Shorten Time to File Dispositive Motions

Plaintiff has moved to shorten the dispositive motion deadline. Currently, dispositive 

motions are due July 26, 2024. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff requests that a new deadline of May 24, 

2024, be set because he is ready to oppose any dispositive motion from defendants. ECF No. 28 

Case 2:23-cv-00492-DJC-JDP Document 31 Filed 05/20/24 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

at 4. Defendants have opposed the motion, arguing that their counsel needs the amount of time 

contemplated by my scheduling order. ECF No. 29. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. I see no 

advantage in shortening the deadline for dispositive motions; on the contrary, the interests of 

justice are better served when litigants can trust and rely upon the dates the court sets. That 

reliance allows counsel to apportion and schedule their labor without the fear that the rug may be 

pulled from under them when a new, quicker deadline suddenly appears. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion to compel, ECF No. 25, is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 26, and motion to shorten time, ECF No. 28, 

are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00492-DJC-JDP Document 31 Filed 05/20/24 Page 5 of 5