Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01622/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01622-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KEENAN WILKINS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

S. HESLOP, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-01622 DJC SCR P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Keenan Wilkins, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with claims under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 asserting excessive force, retaliation, and violations of due process and equal protection. 

Plaintiff also brings state law claims. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is before the court. 

(ECF No. 62.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion to compel is granted in part and denied 

in part. 

I. Background and Plaintiff’s Allegations 

 Plaintiff filed this action in the San Joaquin County Superior Court and defendants 

removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). (ECF No. 1.) At all relevant times, plaintiff 

was an inmate at California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”). (ECF No. 20 at 1.) 

The operative second amended complaint alleges that on January 17, 2019, plaintiff 

informed his correctional counselor he did not feel safe around defendant Heslop and refused 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 73 Filed 08/19/24 Page 1 of 11
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 

Heslop as his staff assistant. (ECF No. 20 at 3.) Heslop came to plaintiff’s required Mental health 

therapy at 9:00 a.m. and interrupted the group to speak to plaintiff. (Id. at 3-5.) 

Under the complaint’s allegations, Heslop ordered plaintiff to leave the group and took 

plaintiff back to his unit. (ECF No. 20 at 4-5.) Heslop grabbed plaintiff angrily and shoved him 

against the wall. (Id. at 5.) Heslop handcuffed plaintiff aggressively and tried to force him to 

walk, but plaintiff fell to the ground. (Id.) Other officers intervened and escorted plaintiff to his 

cell. (ECF NO. 20 at 6.) 

Following this incident on January 17, 2019, plaintiff “sought redress” against Heslop. 

(ECF No. 20 at 7.) In an alleged act of retaliation, Heslop issued a “write-up with false 

statements” which resulted in 90 days of punishment. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges defendant Sawma, his staff assistant, did not meet with him or provide 

him assistance pertaining to a disciplinary hearing on January 25, 2019. (ECF No. 20 at 9-11.) 

The hearing officer, defendant B. Velasquez, refused to allow camera footage of the incident to 

be shown, refused to allow plaintiff to call witnesses, denied plaintiff’s request to obtain and 

present documentary evidence, and refused to consider plaintiff’s mental health assessment. (Id.) 

Plaintiff was found guilty of a rule violation. (ECF No. 20 at 11.) Although the RVR was 

dismissed on appeal, plaintiff still suffered the punishment. (Id.) 

 Based on the allegations above, on July 24, 2023, the court ordered that this case proceeds 

on the following claims: (1) against defendant S. Heslop for excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, assault, battery, and 

violation of the Bane Act; and (2) against B. Velasquez and A. Sawma for a violation of 

plaintiff’s equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 34.) 

 On February 5, 2024, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 51.) 

Briefing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment is currently stayed. (ECF No. 54.) 

 On April 16, 2024, the court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling 

order and reopened discovery “for the limited purpose of requiring defendants to respond to the 

plaintiff’s six sets of discovery requests served on October 31, 2023, and November 1, 2023.” 

(ECF No. 57 at 6.) Defendants served responses. 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 73 Filed 08/19/24 Page 2 of 11
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 

Plaintiff filed the motion to compel presently before the court on June 7, 2024. (ECF No. 

62.) The motion is fully briefed with defendants’ opposition and plaintiff’s reply. (ECF Nos. 69, 

70.) 

II. Legal Standards 

A. Motion to Compel 

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may 

move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(3)(B). Such “motion may be made if ... (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory 

submitted under Rule 33; or (iv) a party fails to produce documents or fails to respond that 

inspection will be permitted – or fails to permit inspection – as required under Rule 34.” Id. “The 

party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has 

the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine 

Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998). 

B. Official Information Privilege 

“Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information.” Sanchez 

v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. 

for the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975)). “To determine whether the 

information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the 

potential disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the privilege bars discovery.” Sanchez, 936 F.2d 

1027, 1033-34; see Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (describing 

the balancing test as “moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure”). The party asserting the 

privilege properly invokes the privilege by providing a declaration or affidavit from a responsible 

official with personal knowledge of the matters attested to which makes a “substantial threshold 

showing” allowing assessment of the privilege assertions. Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 661. 

C. Privacy Rights 

Federal courts recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that may be asserted in 

response to discovery requests. See Breed v. United States Dist. Ct. for Northern District, 542 

F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (balancing the invasion of minor’s privacy rights against the 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 73 Filed 08/19/24 Page 3 of 11
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 

court’s need for ward files); Johnson by Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497 (10th Cir. 

1992), cert. den. 507 U.S. 910, (1993) (denying discovery of names of participants in a medical 

study due to privacy interests of the individual participants). The resolution of a party’s privacy 

objection involves balancing the need for the information sought against the privacy right 

asserted. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Federal courts should 

give “some weight” to privacy rights that are protected by state constitutions or statutes. Soto v. 

City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 656). 

III. Discussion 

A. RFP (Set 2) 

Plaintiff moves to compel defendants to provide further responses to Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 

4, 5, and 6 of plaintiff’s second set of requests for production of documents. (See ECF No. 62 at 

3-4, 6-8.) 

Nos. 1 & 3 

In Request No. 1, plaintiff seeks the log or record showing the time the Code Alarm was 

pushed after he fell to the ground. (ECF No. 69-11 at 5.) In Request No. 3, plaintiff seeks CDCR 

forms which he argues CDCR was required by regulation to complete in reviewing a use of force 

incident. (Id.) Defendants determined there are no responsive documents and responded 

accordingly. 

Whether further action is warranted as to Request No. 3 is a close call. CDCR’s 

regulations suggest that at least some of the requested records should exist. See 15 C.C.R. § 

3268.1(e)(1) (requiring that CDCR officials complete certain forms requested by plaintiff in 

reviewing a use of force incident). And while courts may entertain a presumption that agencies 

follow their own regulations, see Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007), here 

counsel for defendants specifically states that a diligent search turned up no responsive records. 

On this record, the court declines to require more of defendnats. See Edeh v. Equifax Information 

Services, LLC, 2013 WL 3997874, at *8 (D. Minn.) (“Equifax maintains that it does not have the 

1

 Citations to page numbers in the parties’ briefs are to the pages assigned by CM/ECF at the top 

of the page. 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 73 Filed 08/19/24 Page 4 of 11
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 

documents requested in Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 4. If Equifax does not have the 

documents in its possession, custody, or control, it cannot be compelled to produce them. Because 

Edeh has not provided the Court with any concrete basis for believing that Equifax is being 

untruthful, Equifax's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 4 are sufficient.”); United 

States v. Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The 

party seeking the production of documents ... bears the burden of proving that the opposing party 

has such control.”). Accordingly, the motion is denied as to these requests. 

Nos. 2 & 4 

In Request No. 2, plaintiff seeks “CDCR form 3013-2 and CDCR form 3014 that were 

required for this incident...” (ECF No. 69-1 at 5.) Defendants objected in relevant part, based on 

the following: 

[T]he Official Information Privilege, California Government Code 

section 6254, California Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8, 

California Evidence Code sections 1040, 1041, and 1043, and 

Defendants’ common law right to privacy. The documents are also 

protected by the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, § 3321 

(Confidential Material). Disclosure of the requested document, 

which is confidential in nature, would also compromise the safety 

and security of the institution, inmates, and staff. 

(ECF No. 69-1 at 5.) Defendants’ privilege log identifies two responsive documents: 

CDCR Form 3013-2 (Inmate Interview for Allegation Worksheet) 

for appeal log no. CHCF-E-19-00132 

CDCR Form 3014 (Report of Findings—Inmate Interview) for 

appeal log no. CHCF-E-19-00132 

(ECF No. 69-1 at 9.) 

In Request No. 4, plaintiff seeks the staff complaint he submitted and “associated 

confidential and non-confidential inquiries, interviews, statements and findings.” (Id. at 6.) 

Defendants provided the staff complaint only and otherwise objected, in relevant part, as follows: 

To the extent Plaintiff’s request seeks inquiries conducted in 

response to CHCF-E-19-00132, the request seeks information that is 

protected from disclosure by regulation. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 

§ 3486.2 (discussing the process of staff misconduct investigations 

and their confidentiality); see also CDCR Department Operations 

Manual § 54100.25.2 (outlining confidential staff complaint appeal 

inquiry process). 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 73 Filed 08/19/24 Page 5 of 11
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 

6 

(Id. at 6.) Defendants’ privilege log identifies one responsive document: 

Confidential Appeal Inquiry Supplement to appeal log no. CHCF-E19-00132 

(ECF No. 69-1 at 9.) 

Plaintiff argues he has a right to know about misconduct findings. (ECF No. 70 at 6-7.) 

Defendants counter that the official information privilege and right to privacy are recognized 

under federal common law and the court can consider state law on privilege to the extent it is 

consistent with federal law. (ECF No. 69 at 7-9.) 

Defendants submit the declaration of E. Campos, who is employed by the California 

Department of Corrections as a Correctional Counselor. (ECF No. 69-1 at 11-15.) According to 

E. Campos, the documents responsive to Request No. 2 contain the reviewing staff’s conclusions 

as to whether staff complied with department use of force policy, procedures, and training, and 

whether any follow-up action is necessary. (Id. at 12, ¶ 6.) The documents responsive to Request 

No. 4 incorporate the documents responsive to Request No. 2 and additionally contain 

confidential statements made by staff witnesses and the reviewer’s findings of whether staff 

violated policy. (Id., ¶7.) 

According to the declaration of E. Campos, the responsive documents are strictly 

confidential under state regulations except to staff involved in the inquiry process. (ECF No. 69-1 

at 12, ¶ 8.) E. Campos declares that disclosure would pose a serious threat to the safety and 

security of CDCR institutions, its staff, and inmates, by exposing the inner workings of the 

institution. Specifically, it would “educate inmates on the methods by which staff are evaluated,” 

contribute to inmates to falsely accusing staff or otherwise manipulating the investigation process, 

hamper future investigations, hinder the ability of CDCR to investigate potential enemy and 

custodial concerns, and discourage staff and inmate witnesses from making truthful statements. 

(Id., ¶¶ 9-11, 15.) 

According to the declaration of E. Campos, a protective order allowing the documents to 

be in an inmate’s custody in the prison environment would not suffice to address the risks created 

by releasing such information to inmates unrepresented by counsel, including the risk of physical 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 73 Filed 08/19/24 Page 6 of 11
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 

7 

violence to plaintiff or inmate witnesses. (ECF No. 69-1 at 14, ¶ 13.) “At a minimum,” Campos 

declares, “witnesses’ statements and the reviewer’s conclusion/findings should be redacted to 

protect the integrity of CDCR’s investigative process.” (Id., ¶ 12.) 

The court is persuaded that CDCR Form 3013-2, CDCR Form 3014, and the Confidential 

Appeal Inquiry Supplement may be clearly and uniquely relevant to plaintiff’s claims. District 

courts have required disclosure of similar documents, or, at a minimum, reviewed the documents 

in camera in other cases where such relevance was found. See generally, e.g., Owens v. Degazio, 

No. 2:16-CV-2750-JAM-KJN-P, 2020 WL 128517, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2020); Williams v. 

Bell, No. 1:16-CV-01584-LJO-SAB-PC, 2018 WL 6812502, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2018); 

Johnson v. Sandy, No. 2:12-CV-2922 JAM AC, 2014 WL 4631642, at *12 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 

2014). Nevertheless, the court will proceed cautiously given the Campos declaration’s claims that 

unfettered disclosure of the documents could jeopardize institutional security. Therefore, 

defendants will be directed to submit the documents for in camera review, after which the court 

will make a final assessment of relevance, the potential benefits of disclosure versus the potential 

disadvantages of disclosure, and, if appropriate, the method of disclosure and any redactions. 

Defendants may move for a protective order, if desired. 

No. 5 

In Request No. 5, plaintiff seeks any “Effective Communication form completed by 

Sawma...” relating to plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 69-1 at 7.) Defendants referred plaintiff to the 

Effective Communication form already produced. (Id.) Plaintiff argues the form produced is a 

“fraudulent record” and that there should be a different one which, under regulations, “the 

inmates must sign and acknowledge[.]” (ECF No. 70 at 8.) Plaintiff does not make a colorable 

showing that other responsive documents exist and are being withheld. The motion is denied as to 

this request. 

No. 6 

In Request No. 6, plaintiff seeks the record of inmates who were present at the EOP 

Mental Health Group where Heslop came to see plaintiff. (ECF No. 69-1 at 7.) Defendants 

produced a redacted copy of the responsive log and otherwise objected, asserting third-party 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 73 Filed 08/19/24 Page 7 of 11
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 

8 

privacy rights under Article I, Section I of the California Constitution and the Health Information 

Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). (Id. at 8, 10.) The redacted document appears to 

list a total of 10 inmate names for the 9:00 meeting. (Id. at 10.) Under plaintiff’s allegations, these 

inmates could have witnessed a portion of the interaction between Heslop and plaintiff on January 

17, 2019. 

To the extent defendants raised objections based on the Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA), HIPAA expressly provides for disclosure of health information in a 

judicial proceeding in response to a court order. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(i). In this instance, the 

request does not seek records maintained in patient medical records. Moreover, only the names of 

the inmates in attendance at the 9:00 meeting must be disclosed. The motion to compel is granted 

as to the record of inmates present at the 9:00 a.m. EOP Mental Health Group. 

The parties are prohibited from using or disclosing this protected health information for 

any purpose other than the litigation of this case. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512. At the conclusion of this 

litigation, plaintiff shall return the protected health information to defendants’ counsel or destroy 

the protected information (including all copies made). Id. 

B. RFP (Set 3) 

Request No. 1 of plaintiff’s third set of requests for production of documents seeks video 

camera footage of the January 17, 2019 incident. (ECF No. 69-1 at 18.) Plaintiff asserts video 

camera footage existed and was destroyed but provides no evidentiary basis for his belief. (ECF 

No. 62 at 7.) Plaintiff argues defendants should have to explain why the video is unavailable or 

why mandatory policy was violated. (ECF No. 70 at 11.) However, plaintiff fails to make a 

colorable showing that the requested video footage exists and is being withheld, or that it 

previously existed and was lost or destroyed. The motion is denied as to this request. 

C. Interrogatories 

Plaintiff first seeks to compel defendant Sawma to respond further to Interrogatory No. 12 

(“Did you consult with mental health and/or custody officials to identify the Group Room 4 9:00 

AM female facilitator and two inmates Plaintiff informed you that he wanted to call (Wong and 

Muhammad)?”) (ECF No. 69-1 at 20.) Sawma responded in relevant part that she “asked a mental 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 73 Filed 08/19/24 Page 8 of 11
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 

9 

health professional to assist me in locating Plaintiff’s requested female psychiatric technician 

witness, but the professional was unable to locate Plaintiff’s requested witness.” (ECF No. 69-1 at 

22.) Plaintiff seeks to compel defendant Sawma to provide the name of the mental health 

professional referenced in the response. (ECF No. 62 at 4, 8.) As defendants correctly argue, 

though, the interrogatory itself did not expressly seek the information now requested and the 

response provided is adequately responsive to the interrogatory. The motion to compel further 

response to Interrogatory 12 is denied. 

Plaintiff next seeks to compel defendant Sawma to respond further to Interrogatory No. 13 

to clarify a claimed inconsistency with an earlier interrogatory response. In response to 

Interrogatory No. 13, Defendant Sawma states, “I am not aware of a section in Title 15 of the 

California Code of Regulations or CDCR’s Department Operations Manual stating whether a 

staff assistant can serve a rules violation report on an inmate.” (ECF No. 69-1 at 22.) Plaintiff 

does not show the response to be inconsistent with a prior response indicating that “Search and 

Escort Officers designated to issue rules violations reports to inmates” are not prohibited from 

serving as the inmate’s staff assistant. (See ECF No. 69 at 14.) The motion to compel on this issue 

is denied. 

Plaintiff also challenges defendant Heslop’s response to Interrogatory No. 11 as 

incomplete or evasive. (ECF No. 62 at 4; see also ECF No. 70 at 14.) Interrogatory No. 11 to 

Heslop asked the following: “After the January 7, 2019 incident how many times did you attend 

Plaintiff’s Classification Committee’s and Interdisciplinary Treatment Team in the capacity as a 

Correctional Counselor . . . when not assigned as his official correctional counselor?” (ECF No. 

69-1 at 26.) Plaintiff asserts Heslop gave a “willfully false statement” in response. If plaintiff 

believes the statement is not credible or demonstrably false, then plaintiff may attack credibility at 

trial, by cross-examination. Plaintiff expresses dissatisfaction with the phrasing of the response 

but fails to show defendant’s phrasing avoided the question or was non-responsive. The motion to 

compel on this issue is denied. 

Finally, plaintiff challenges defendant Heslop’s response to Interrogatory No. 13. (ECF 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 73 Filed 08/19/24 Page 9 of 11
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 

10 

No. 62 at 4; see also ECF No. 70 at 14-15.)2 Interrogatory No. 13 to Heslop stated the following: 

“What was so urgent or pressing that you could not wait until after Plaintiff’s mental health 

treatment therapeutic group to talk to him.” (ECF No. 69-1 at 28.) Helsop responded “I do not 

contend there was an ‘urgent’ or ‘pressing’ need to talk to Plaintiff on January 7, 2019; therefore, 

no further response is required.” (Id.) 

Given plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his interrogatories should be construed broadly by 

defendants. See Clark v. Smith, Case No. 19-cv-932-RJD, 2021 WL 3033221, at *3 (N.D. Ill., 

July 19, 2021) (“In light of Plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant, the Court construes this 

interrogatory broadly and DIRECTS Defendant to do the same.”). Plaintiff’s interrogatory asks 

about the timing of Heslop’s action with reference to the adjectives “urgent or pressing.” A 

reasonable reading of this interrogatory is that it is asking why Heslop did not wait until after the 

group session to talk to plaintiff, as opposed to asking only whether there was literally something 

urgent or pressing that caused Heslop to act when he did. Heslop can answer the interrogatory by 

explaining why he acted when he did. The motion to compel on this issue is granted. 

IV. Conclusion 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 62) is granted in part as set forth herein as to 

Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 2, 4, and 6 and Heslop 

Interrogatory No. 13. 

2. Within 14 days of the date of this order, defendants shall produce to plaintiff the 

document responsive to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, No. 6, with 

unredacted names for the 9:00 meeting. 

3. Within 14 days of the date of this order, defendants shall produce to the court for in 

camera review the documents responsive to Request for Production of Documents, Set 

Two, Nos. 2 and 4, and shall move for any protective order. 

2

 Plaintiff’s motion to compel did not expressly address Interrogatory No. 16 to Heslop. Instead 

Interrogatory No. 16 is merely referenced in a meet and confer letter attached to the motion. (See 

ECF No. 62 at 9.) Plaintiff has not properly moved to compel a further response to Interrogatory 

No. 16 to Heslop. 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 73 Filed 08/19/24 Page 10 of 11
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 

11 

4. Within 14 days of the date of this order, defendants shall serve on plaintiff an 

amended response to Heslop Interrogatory No. 13 consistent with the court’s 

construction of that interrogatory. 

5. In all other respects, the motion to compel is denied. 

6. The parties are prohibited from using or disclosing protected health information for 

any purpose other than the litigation of this case. At the conclusion of this case, 

plaintiff shall return the document responsive to Request for Production of 

Documents, Set Two, No. 6 (and all copies made) to defendants’ counsel. 

DATED: August 19, 2024 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 73 Filed 08/19/24 Page 11 of 11