Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02216/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02216-21/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

ERNEST LEE VADEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR ROBERT L MAYES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2216 TLN CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding with a civil action against defendants Mayes, 

Kuersten and California State Prison, Solano. On February 8, 2022, the court granted plaintiff 

leave to serve follow up interrogatories on defendant Mayes. Plaintiff now seeks an order 

compelling defendant Mayes to provide additional responses to follow-up interrogatories 10, 20 

and 22.

1. Follow-Up Interrogatory #10

In follow-up interrogatory #10, plaintiff asks:

Before your chronic care appointments with inmate patients do you 

review the most recent medical entries (Nurse Progress Notes and 

CDCR Health Care Services Request Forms)?

Defendant Mayes responded as follows:

Objection. Defendant Mayes objects on the basis that the 

interrogatory calls for speculation, is vague and ambiguous as to the 

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 128 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 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

2

phrases “[b]efore your chronic care appointments” and “most recent 

medical entries,” and constitutes an incomplete hypothetical.

Defendant Mayes further objects to the extent that the interrogatory 

seeks health information protected under the Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 

1320d, et seq., and other privacy laws relating to the medical care of 

non-party inmates. Further, this interrogatory is irrelevant insofar as 

it calls for comparing medical treatment of other patients or their 

health conditions.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant Mayes responds that 

he reviews chronic care patient medical records every day, pursuant 

to the chronic care protocols. This review includes, but is not limited 

to, review of progress notes of nurses and other medical staff and 

CDCR 7362 Health Care Services Request Forms submitted by 

patients. Defendant Mayes further responds that each patient and 

condition requires differing levels of care. The frequency of medical 

record review depends on a number of factors, including but not 

limited to the seriousness of the medical condition at-issue, and the 

level of care required to treat the condition.

The court finds that none of defendants’ objections are well-taken and that defendant 

Mayes’s answer is evasive. Good cause appearing, defendant Mayes will be ordered to indicate 

to plaintiff whether, as a matter of course, he reviews the medical entries described by plaintiff in 

preparation for chronic care appointments. Failure to comply with this order will result in 

sanctions. 

2. Follow Up Interrogatory #20

In follow-up interrogatory #20, plaintiff asks: 

Who is or was more qualified to determine Plaintiff’s mobility 

limitations due to his lower extremity bilateral leg pain from 3/1/18 

through 9/20/18, you or Plaintiff?

Defendant Mayes responded as follows:

Objection. Defendant Mayes objects on the basis that the 

interrogatory calls for speculation, and is vague and ambiguous as to 

the phrases “more qualified” and “extremity bilateral leg pain,” is 

argumentative, assumes facts in dispute, and constitutes an 

incomplete hypothetical. 

Without waiving these objections, Defendant Mayes responds that 

he is well-qualified to evaluate mobility limitations, bilateral leg 

pain, and pain in the extremities. Defendant Mayes further responds 

that physicians rely on a patient’s accurate description of their selfreported symptoms, but also rely on their observations of a patient’s 

presentation and other more objective criteria in evaluating these 

health conditions.

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 128 Filed 09/26/22 Page 2 of 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

3

The court finds defendant Mayes’s response is adequate. Defendant Mayes will not be 

required to respond further. 

3. Follow Up Interrogatory # 22

In follow-up interrogatory #22, plaintiff asks:

Does a diabetic who test 270 glucose level after eating two hours 

previous (not eating between) considered serious in need of medical 

attention?

Defendant Mayes responded as follows:

Objection. Defendant Mayes objects on the basis that the 

interrogatory assumes facts in dispute, is argumentative, and 

constitutes an incomplete hypothetical.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant Mayes responds that a 

person’s glucose level can vary depending on a person’s diet, the 

time he or she last ate relative to when the blood glucose level is 

administered, and numerous other medical factors. Such factors 

include, but are not limited to, any medications a person is taking, 

methods to treat and stabilize one’s blood glucose level, the efficacy 

of those treatments, and hereditary factors.

Defendant Mayes further responds that a blood glucose level of 270 

is considered slightly high and is not optimal, but perhaps more 

indicative of the hypothetical person having eaten two hours prior. 

The blood glucose level is also dependent on what type of food was 

eaten, such as foods with high amounts of sugar or carbohydrates. A 

blood glucose level of 270 would be deemed more problematic if it 

remained high long after eating, and did not decrease with the

passage of time. A determination of how serious the hypothetical 

condition is also depends on how consistently the hypothetical 

patient presents with high blood glucose levels, and whether insulin 

treatments have proven effective to stabilize those levels.

Plaintiff essentially argues the defendant Mayes’s answer is evasive. The court disagrees. 

Defendant’s indication that a glucose level of 270 is slightly high and not optimal answers 

plaintiff’s question in the negative. Defendant Mayes will not be ordered to respond further. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

////

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 128 Filed 09/26/22 Page 3 of 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 1, 2022 motion to compel 

(ECF No. 115) is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

1. Granted with respect to follow-up interrogatory #10. Within 10 days, defendant Mayes 

shall provide a further response to follow-up interrogatory #10 indicating whether, as a matter of 

course, he reviews progress notes and/or CDCR requests for health care forms in preparation for 

chronic care appointments. Failure to comply with this order will result in sanctions. 

2. Denied in all other respects. 

Dated: September 26, 2022

1

vade2216.mtc

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 128 Filed 09/26/22 Page 4 of 4