Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01272/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01272-13/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 

LAWRENCE GEORGE HASH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. RALLOS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-1272 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions to compel (ECF Nos. 

54, 57), which defendants have opposed (ECF Nos. 69, 72). Plaintiff also seeks leave to file 

oversized reply briefs. ECF Nos. 75, 78. 

I. Plaintiff’s Allegations 

Plaintiff alleges that on July 10, 2012, he underwent surgery on his esophagus and 

stomach. ECF No. 1 at 8. He was discharged the following day, and the day after that he began 

throwing up blood and food. Id. He subsequently lost twenty-five pounds, had stomach gas, 

bowel problems, stomach aches, and could not swallow or eat properly. Id. On November 13, 

2012, plaintiff filed a health care appeal in which he identified all the side effects he was 

suffering from the surgery and stated that the surgeon who had performed the surgery 

recommended that the surgery be reversed. Id. at 9. 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 79 Filed 10/01/24 Page 1 of 13
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 

On December 11, 2012, Rallos interviewed plaintiff regarding his health care appeal. Id. 

at 10. On January 2, 2013, Phile conducted the second-level review of plaintiff’s appeal. Id. On 

February 11, 2013, Allen reviewed and approved the second-level response. Id. On August 7, 

2013, Zamora signed off on the third-level response. Id. Plaintiff alleges that his appeal put each 

of the defendants on notice of his medical condition, that his condition was continuing to decline, 

and that the longer he went without surgery, the less chance he had of the reversal being 

successful. Id. at 11-12. He also asserts that each defendant had the authority to speed up the 

process and promptly arrange for him to undergo reversal surgery but failed to do so, causing him 

to needlessly suffer for over four years until he finally received the necessary reversal surgery on 

February 2, 2017. Id. at 12-13. 

II. Standards Governing Discovery 

The scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) is broad. 

Discovery may be obtained as to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within 

this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. The court, 

however, must limit discovery if it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained 

from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;” or if the 

party who seeks discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery;” 

or if “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(2)(C). The purpose of discovery is to “make a trial less a game of blind man’s buff and 

more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent,” 

United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958) (citation omitted), and “to 

narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties,” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 

(1947). 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a motion to compel may be made if “a party 

fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33; or a party fails to produce documents or 

fails to respond that inspection will be permitted . . . as requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv). The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of showing that the 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 79 Filed 10/01/24 Page 2 of 13
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 

discovery sought is relevant or that its denial will cause substantial prejudice. Aros v. Fansler, 

548 F. App’x 500, 501 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 

2002)). The opposing party is “required to carry a heavy burden of showing why discovery was 

denied.” Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). Under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 36, a party may move for a determination as to the sufficiency of an answer or 

objection to an admission. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). 

III. Motions to Compel 

Plaintiff has filed motions to compel further responses to nearly all of the discovery 

request he served on defendants. ECF Nos. 54, 57. Defendants oppose the motions and argue 

that their responses were sufficient and their objections justified. ECF Nos. 69, 72. 

IV. Discussion 

Plaintiff has challenged the sufficiency of nearly every response to each of his discovery 

requests, which means he has challenged the responses to nearly 250 requests. In the interests of 

judicial economy, the court will here address primarily those requests that require a further 

response. All other responses have been reviewed and deemed sufficient when considered in 

light of the record as a whole, including any additional response provided in defendants’ 

oppositions to the motions to compel. In addressing the sufficiency of defendants’ responses, the 

court rejects as meritless the general argument that requests related to plaintiff’s medical appeal 

are irrelevant because he has no right to a specific process or policy (ECF No. 69 at 13-14; ECF 

No. 72 at 14). Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim is premised on defendants’ handling of his 

appeal, and information related to that appeal, including defendants’ duties with respect to the 

handling of the appeal and their authority within the appeal process, is clearly relevant to the case. 

A. Interrogatories 

Plaintiff has objected to nearly all of defendants’ responses to his interrogatories. The 

court has reviewed plaintiff’s challenges to the interrogatories and defendants’ responses and 

finds that further responses are required as outlined below.1

1

 To the extent plaintiff attempts to “rephrase” any of his discovery requests, the court finds that 

defendants’ objection on the ground that the rephrased requests constitute new and different 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 79 Filed 10/01/24 Page 3 of 13
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 

Plaintiff’s second interrogatory to each defendant requested that they “state the names, 

addresses and business telephone numbers of all witnesses” who can confirm the facts listed in 

their responses to plaintiff’s first interrogatory, which asked for facts supporting their claim they 

did not violate his rights. ECF No. 54 at 91 (Zamora NUI 2), 135 (Pfile NUI 2); ECF No. 57 at 

82 (Rallos NUI 2), 128 (Allen NUI 2). Defendants responded that the information was equally 

available to plaintiff in his medical records from “California Correctional Health Care System; 

the Queen of the Valley Hospital; Samer Kaanan, M.D.; the University of California, San 

Francisco; and the records produced in connection with Plaintiff’s prior lawsuit involving the 

same underlying medical procedure and treatment.” Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) 

provides that if an answer to an interrogatory can be determined by analyzing a record and the 

burden of ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same to either party, the responding 

party can respond by “specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable 

the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could” and 

providing a reasonable opportunity to examine the records. Defendants’ responses to these 

interrogatories do not identify the records containing the information with sufficient specificity. 

Defendants shall therefore provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 2 that either 

identify the witnesses or identify the records with sufficient specificity that plaintiff can readily 

locate them. 

Defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s third interrogatory to each defendant, which requested 

that defendants identify all writings that support their responses to his first interrogatory, suffer 

from the same defect in specificity. ECF No. 54 at 91 (Zamora NUI 3), 135 (Pfile NUI 3); ECF 

No. 82 at 82 (Rallos NUI 3), 128 (Allen NUI 3). The responses to Interrogatory No. 7 to Zamora 

and Interrogatory No. 13 to Allen, which requested they list all medical or other records reviewed 

when considering plaintiff’s appeal are similarly deficient. ECF No. 54 at 97; ECF No. 57 at 138. 

All defendants will therefore be required to provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 

3 that either identify the records with sufficient specificity that plaintiff can readily locate them or 

requests is well-taken. 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 79 Filed 10/01/24 Page 4 of 13
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 

produce the documents. Zamora and Allen shall provide a similar supplemental response to their 

Interrogatory No. 7 and Interrogatory No. 13, respectively. 

Pfile will be required to provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 5-10, 12-

13, 16, and 19-20; Rallos will be required to provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory 

Nos. 9-15; and Allen will be required to provide a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 5. 

Defendants objected to these interrogatories on the ground that they did not know what appeal 

plaintiff was referring to because they completed their review prior to the date identified by 

plaintiff. See ECF No. 54 at 137-39, 141-43, 146-47; ECF No. 57 at 92-94, 131. It is clear from 

the objections that defendant understood which appeal plaintiff was likely referring to and could 

have made responses conditional to that understanding. Defendants will therefore be required to 

provide supplemental responses to these requests with the understanding that they relate to the 

review of plaintiff’s appeal for which each was responsible. 

Defendants will also be required to respond to the following interrogatories: Zamora 

Interrogatory Nos. 18 and 23, Rallos Interrogatory No. 24, and Allen Interrogatory No. 6. These 

requests relate to the policies governing plaintiff’s appeal. See ECF No. 54 at 104-05, 107; ECF 

No. 57 at 103, 131. The court will limit their responses to policies that were in effect at the time 

they were working on plaintiff’s appeal and that outline their duties with respect to the handling 

of plaintiff’s appeal and their authority within the appeal process. 

Allen will also be required to provide a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 20. 

ECF No. 57 at 144-45. To the extent the request could be construed as seeking information 

related to discussions with counsel or an expert or consultant in preparation for defending this 

action, the objections on grounds that the information is protected by the attorney-client privilege 

and attorney work product protection and include records constituting expert information are 

sustained. However, to the extent the requests seek information regarding individuals Allen 

consulted with while handling plaintiff’s grievance, the objections are overruled. 

Objections to plaintiff’s interrogatories seeking information on adverse actions by 

defendants’ employers and the medical board, inmate grievances, and lawsuits on the grounds of 

relevance are sustained. ECF No. 54 at 98-99, 102-03, 105-06 (Zamora NUIs 8-9, 14, 20), 142-

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 79 Filed 10/01/24 Page 5 of 13
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 

43, 145-46, 148-49 (Pfile NUIs 14-15, 18, 22); ECF No. 57 at 94-95 102-03 (Rallos NUIs 16-17, 

23), 138-39, 143-44, 146 (Allen NUIs 14-15, 18, 22). Although in some cases such records may 

be relevant and sufficiently proportional to the needs of the case, the court does not find this to be 

one such case. Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad and extend well beyond the claims at issue in 

this case, and his argument that he requires the records to show defendants’ “unprofessional 

behavior” does little to fix the defect. See ECF No. 54 at 6-9, 12, 16, 48-51, 53, 57; ECF No. 57 

at 13-15, 18-19, 47-51, 53-55. Moreover, considering the intensely fact specific nature of claims 

for deliberate indifference to medical needs, any relevance of such records is marginal and greatly 

outweighed by the burden of responding to the requests. 

The court finds that that the responses to all other interrogatories are sufficient or the 

objections justified, and no further responses will be required. 

B. Requests for Admission 

In addition to challenging the sufficiency of defendants’ responses to his requests for 

admission, plaintiff asserts that defendants’ responses were untimely and the requests should 

therefore be deemed admitted. ECF No. 54 at 83-85; ECF No. 57 at 75-77. 

As the court previously explained, based on plaintiff’s asserted service date of October 2, 

2022, defendants’ responses had to be served by November 21, 2022. ECF No. 52 at 2 n.1. 

Plaintiff argues that the responses are untimely because even though the proof of service is dated 

November 18, 2022, he did not receive them until November 29, 2022. ECF No. 54 at 84; ECF 

No. 57 at 76. He believes that the certificates of service are inaccurate because of the “substantial 

difference” between these dates, and asks that the defendants be provided to “produce proof of 

the actual date of mailing.” ECF No. 54 at 84; ECF No. 57 at 76. 

Defendants have produced copies of their certificates of service and the postmark from the 

envelope containing the responses, all of which indicate the responses were served on November 

18, 2022, making the responses presumptively timely. ECF No. 65-1 at 7-20. Moreover, the 

court has already addressed the apparent cause of the delay in plaintiff receiving mail from 

defendants and found both parties to be partially at fault. See ECF No. 74 (addressing 

defendants’ use of an incorrect cell number and plaintiff’s failure to file a notice of change of 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 79 Filed 10/01/24 Page 6 of 13
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 

address after he was moved to another cell). Absent direct evidence that the responses were not 

mailed on November 18, 2022, the court finds that the responses were timely and plaintiff’s 

request to have the requests deemed admitted will be denied. 

With respect to defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s requests for admission, the court has 

reviewed the requests along with defendants’ responses and finds that further responses are 

warranted as set forth below. 

With respect to defendant Pfile, supplemental responses to Request for Admission Nos. 1, 

2, 4, 13, 15, 20, 22, and 24 are required. These admissions were all denied on the ground that 

Pfile was “unaware of what C.D.C.R.-602 Health Care Appeal Plaintiff contends Responding 

Party reviewed on February 11, 2013, as the Second Level Review of Plaintiff’s medical appeal 

Responding Party was involved with was completed and dated well prior to February 11, 2013,” 

and no further response was provided in the opposition to the motion to compel. See ECF No. 54 

at 153-54, 158-62. It is clear from the objections that defendant understood what appeal plaintiff 

was likely referring to and could have made responses conditional to that understanding. She will 

therefore be required to provide supplemental responses to these requests with the understanding 

that they relate to the second level review with which she was involved and which she identifies 

as being completed on February 4, 2013. 

With respect to defendant Allen, supplemental responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 

1-5, 11-12, 14, 17, 19, and 22-23 will be required. The court has reviewed Allen’s responses and 

finds that they consist solely of objections which the court finds to be insufficient as to these 

requests. Allen objects to many requests as having terms that are “vague, ambiguous and 

unclear.” ECF No. 57 at 150-51, 154, 156-58. However, any vagueness or ambiguity in the 

requests appears to implicate the evidentiary value of the request rather than Allen’s ability to 

answer the request, and he is free to qualify his answers with respect to any terms he finds to be 

vague or ambiguous. Furthermore, objections based on ambiguity regarding the appeal plaintiff 

was referring to are overruled, as it appears that Allen, like Pfile, understood what appeal plaintiff 

was likely referring to and could have made responses conditional to that understanding. 

Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4) requires that 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 79 Filed 10/01/24 Page 7 of 13
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 

[i]f a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or 

state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or 

deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; 

and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny 

only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and 

qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of 

knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny 

only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that 

the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable 

it to admit or deny. 

The court finds that many of plaintiff’s requests appear to be capable of being answered at least in 

part. See, e.g., ECF No. 57 at 151 (RFA No. 5).2 

The responses to all other requests for admission are sufficient. The court notes that with 

respect to many of the challenged responses, defendants either admitted or denied the request 

despite any objections. The court cannot compel defendants to change their responses. If 

plaintiff believes a response is untruthful, he will be free to attempt to impeach defendants with 

any evidence he has to the contrary should the case proceed to trial. 

C. Requests Production 

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to all forty-six requests for production 

propounded on defendants. ECF No. 54 at 33-40, 77-83; ECF No. 57 at 32-37, 69-75. 

Defendants did not produce a single document in response to plaintiff’s requests. While some of 

plaintiff’s requests seek documents of relevance too tenuous to warrant production, defendants 

also failed to respond to standard production requests to which a response should have been 

provided. 

Plaintiff requested copies of Pfile, Rallos, and Allen’s curricula vitae (CVs) and medical 

licenses (Pfile RFP 1, Rallos RFP 6; Allen RFP 6), as well as any post-medical school training 

records (Pfile RFP 8, Rallos RFP 10, Allen RFP 10). He also requests the diplomas and 

transcripts of all defendants (Zamora RFP 7, Pfile RFP 5, Rallos RFP 7, Allen RFP 7). 

Defendants object on the grounds that the requests seek documents protected by their right to 

2

 RFA No. 5 requests that defendant admit that plaintiff’s “health care appeal was partially 

granted at the 1st and 2nd levels of review” because the needs partially granted met the 

requirements of a specific regulation. ECF No. 57 at 151. Presumably Allen can admit or deny 

whether the appeal was partially granted even if he is unable to admit or deny the reason. 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 79 Filed 10/01/24 Page 8 of 13
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 

privacy, are not relevant, and are equally available as public records. ECF No. 54 at 128, 166, 

169; ECF No. 57 at 120, 122, 164, 166. In opposition to the motion to compel they argue that 

this information is not relevant because their only involvement with plaintiff was through the 

appeals process. ECF No. 69 at 22-23, 49-50; ECF No. 72 at 22-23, 47. 

Although defendants Pfile, Rallos, and Allen were not acting in a capacity as plaintiff’s 

treating physicians, their professional, medical expertise is relevant to their consideration of 

plaintiff’s grievance. That defendants “did not make any medical orders or recommendations 

beyond those relating to the medical appeal,” ECF No. 72 at 23, is not equivalent to claiming that 

defendants did not make any medical orders or recommendations at all and indicates that they 

exercised at least some of their medical expertise in considering plaintiff’s grievance. “[D]ue to 

the professional expertise of medical defendants, their curriculum vitae are generally assumed to 

be relevant.” Kilgore v. Mandeville, No. 2:07-cv-2485 GEB KJN, 2010 WL 2557702, at *7 

(E.D. Cal. June 21, 2010) (collecting cases). Pfile, Rallos, and Allen will therefore be required to 

produce their CVs with personal information redacted. They shall also provide records indicating 

what post-medical school medical training they have completed unless such training is already 

reflected in their CVs. Plaintiff’s requests for copies of defendants’ medical licenses, diplomas, 

and transcripts, however, are of such marginal relevance that production is not warranted.3

Plaintiff has requested copies of “the customs, practices, policies, professional standards 

and protocols” that applied to the processing of his appeal from Zamora, Rallos, and Allen. ECF 

No. 54 at 125 (Zamora RFP 1); ECF No. 57 at 118 (Rallos RFP 1), 162 (Allen RFP 1). However, 

all three defendants assert that they are not in possession of any responsive documents, they have 

no legal right to demand the documents because they are no longer employees, the documents are 

equally available to plaintiff as public records, the requests seek documents protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection, and the requests include records 

constituting expert materials.4 ECF No. 54 at 125; ECF No. 57 at 118, 162; ECF No. 69 at 17; 

3

 The court similarly finds that plaintiff’s requests for defendants’ employment contracts and 

documents showing civil service numbers are of little to no relevance to the issues before the 

court and defendants are not required to produce them. 

4

 Allen objected only on the ground that there are no responsive documents because plaintiff 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 79 Filed 10/01/24 Page 9 of 13
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 

ECF No. 72 at 17-18. The court finds that defendants’ claims that they have no right to demand 

the documents is contradicted by their claim that they are equally available to plaintiff as public 

records, and there appears to be no basis for their claim that the documents are protected or 

constitute expert materials. Moreover, considering the difficulties that incarcerated plaintiffs face 

in obtaining documents, including those that are considered public records, the court finds that the 

records are not equally available to plaintiff, particularly considering that the policies which were 

in place at the relevant times have likely been replaced by updated policies. Defendants will 

therefore be required to respond to these requests. However, the court will limit the responses to 

policies that were in effect at the time defendants were working on plaintiff’s appeal and that 

outline their duties with respect to the handling of plaintiff’s appeal and their authority within the 

appeal process. 

Zamora, Rallos, and Allen have also objected to requests for records relevant to their 

review of plaintiff’s grievance, records supporting their claim that they did not violate plaintiff’s 

rights, writings that support their responses to interrogatories, adverse or disciplinary actions by 

their employers, and adverse actions by the medical board on the same grounds as they objected 

to the requests for grievance policies. ECF No. 54 at 126-29 (Zamora RFPs 3-5, 8-10); ECF No. 

57 at 119-23 (Rallos RFPs 3-5, 8-9, 12), 163-67 (Allen RFPs 3-5, 8-9, 12).5 He has made similar 

requests to Pfile, who objects on the same grounds except that she does not claim to no longer be 

employed by the CDCR or CCHCS and raises an additional claim of third-party privacy concerns 

in relation to plaintiff’s request for a list of inmate grievance against her. ECF No. 54 at 167-71 

(Pfile RFPs 3-4, 6-7, 10, 12). 

Defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s requests for adverse actions by defendants’ 

employers and the medical board, inmate grievances, and lawsuits on the grounds of relevance 

are sustained. Although in some cases such records may relevant and proportional, the court does 

requested documents related to his first-level review of the grievance, when Allen reviewed 

plaintiff’s second-level grievance. ECF No. 57 at 162; ECF No. 72 at 45. As with other similar 

objections, the court finds that Allen reasonably understood which grievance response was at 

issue and could have provided a qualified response, but assumes that Allen would have otherwise 

objected similarly to Zamora and Rallos. 

5

 Requests 5 and 10 to Zamora and Requests 5 and 12 to Rallos and Allen are duplicative. 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 79 Filed 10/01/24 Page 10 of 13
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 

not find this to be one such case. Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad and extend well beyond the 

claims at issue, and his argument that he requires the records to show defendants’ “unprofessional 

behavior” does little to fix the defect. See ECF No. 54 at 38, 81; ECF No. 57 at 18, 36, 47, 73-74. 

Moreover, considering the intensely fact specific nature of claims for deliberate indifference to 

medical needs, any relevance of such records is marginal and greatly outweighed by the burden of 

locating and producing them. 

With respect to plaintiff’s requests for records relevant to defendants’ review of his 

grievance, that support their claims that they did not violate his rights, and that support their 

interrogatory responses, the court finds that defendants’ claims that they are not in possession, 

custody, or control of responsive documents to be belied by their detailed responses to plaintiff’s 

interrogatories requesting they state facts supporting their claims they did not violate his rights. 

Considering the passage of time, it appears extremely unlikely that defendants responded to those 

interrogatories based solely upon their own recollection of events. To the extent the request could 

be construed as seeking documents prepared by counsel or an expert or consultant in preparation 

for defending this action, the objections on grounds that the records are protected by the attorneyclient privilege and attorney work product protection and include records constituting expert 

materials are sustained. However, to the extent the requests seek records reviewed in handling 

plaintiff’s grievance or subsequent medical records that defendants assert demonstrate they were 

not deliberately indifferent, the objections are overruled. The records defendants reviewed in 

addressing plaintiff’s appeal are the records reviewed. Counsel’s collection of these documents 

or the fact that they may have been considered by an expert or consultant does not change the 

historical fact that defendants reviewed those documents. Furthermore, defendants have already 

provided detailed responses regarding why they believe they did not violate plaintiff’s rights and 

a request for documents supporting the factual bases for their responses is not only reasonable but 

relatively standard. Defendants will therefore be required to produce any responsive documents 

that they actually reviewed or to which they had access in preparing their interrogatory responses 

in response to the following requests: Zamora Requests for Production Nos. 3-5, and 9; Pfile 

Requests for Production Nos. 3-4; Rallos Requests for Production Nos. 3-5; and Allen Requests 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 79 Filed 10/01/24 Page 11 of 13
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 

12 

for Production Nos. 3-5. 

Finally, the court sustains defendants’ objections to requests for lists of witnesses and 

their contact information on the grounds that they seek creation of a document not already in 

existence. See ECF No. 54 at 169-70 (Pfile RFP 9); ECF No. 57 at 122-23 (Rallos RFP 11), 166-

67 (Allen RFP 11). 

V. Conclusion 

Plaintiff’s motions to compel are granted in part and denied in part as set forth above. 

Defendants will be required to provide supplemental responses to the requests identified and 

plaintiff will have an opportunity to file any necessary motions for sanctions should they fail to 

comply with this order. Should plaintiff find it necessary to file a motion for sanctions, he is 

cautioned that the court’s twenty-page limit will be strictly enforced absent the showing of a 

compelling need to exceed the page limit. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file extended length replies (ECF Nos. 75, 78) are 

GRANTED; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from defendants Zamora and Pfile (ECF 

No. 54) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 

a. GRANTED to the extent defendant Zamora must provide supplemental responses 

to Interrogatories 2-3, 7, 18, 23; and Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3-5, and 9 as 

set forth above; 

b. GRANTED to the extent that defendant Pfile must provide supplemental responses 

to Interrogatories 2-3, 5-10, 12-13, 16, 19-20; Request for Admission Nos. 1, 2, 4, 

13, 15, 20, 22, and 24; and Requests for Production Nos. 3-4, as set forth above; 

and 

c. DENIED as to all other discovery requests; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses from defendants Rallos and 

Allen (ECF No. 57) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 

a. GRANTED to the extent defendant Rallos must provide supplemental responses to 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 79 Filed 10/01/24 Page 12 of 13
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 

13 

Interrogatories 2-3, 9-15, 24; and Requests for Production Nos. 1, and 3-5, as set 

forth above; 

b. GRANTED to the extent defendant Allen must provide supplemental responses to 

Interrogatories 2-3, 5-6, 13, 20; Requests for Admission Nos. 1-5, 11-12, 14, 17, 

19, and 22-23; and Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3-5, as set forth above; and 

c. DENIED as to all other discovery requests; 

4. Supplemental responses shall be provided within thirty days of the service of this 

order; 

5. Within thirty days of the service of this order, defendants may move for a protective 

order with respect to any sensitive documents, as provided above; and 

6. Within forty-five days of the service of this order, plaintiff may file any necessary 

motion for sanctions if defendants fail to comply with this order. 

DATED: October 1, 2024 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 79 Filed 10/01/24 Page 13 of 13