Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01334/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01334-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SELEAINA ANN THOMAS, et al.,

 Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09cv1334-WQH (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

[Doc. No. 70]

On April 9, 2012, Plaintiff in the above-entitled matter filed a Motion to

Compel. (Doc. No. 70). On April 27, 2012, Defendants filed a Response in

Opposition. (Doc. No. 74). In his Motion, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have

refused to provide him with requested discovery, and that Defendants’ objections to

producing discovery are meritless. (Doc. No. 70). In their Response, Defendants

contend that Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied because it fails to state why

Plaintiff is entitled to relief. (Doc. No. 74).

Background

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleges that

Defendant Thomas, a family nurse practitioner, was deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs when she repeatedly refused to treat him after an injury.

Plaintiff states that he fell from the top bunk of his cell three times, and then

09cv1334-WQH (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 81 Filed 06/01/12 Page 1 of 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

requested medical treatment. Plaintiff contends that Defendants repeatedly

ignored his requests for treatment and deliberately hindered his recovery. Id.

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Thomas refused to honor his

previously issued medical chrono, forced him to return a neck brace even though he

still needed it, and failed to prescribe pain medication. (FAC at ¶7-30). 

Legal Standard

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery,

authorizing parties to obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is

relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, “[f]or good

cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter

involved in the action.” Id. Relevant information for discovery purposes includes

any information “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence,” and need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id. There is no

requirement that the information sought directly relate to a particular issue in the

case. Rather, relevance encompasses any matter that “bears on” or could

reasonably lead to matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be presented

in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 354 (1978). District

courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See

Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, district courts have

broad discretion to limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably

cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Limits

also should be imposed where the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefits. 

Id.

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule

26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response must either

state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state

an objection to the request, including the reasons.” Id. at 34(b). The responding

2 09cv1334-WQH (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 81 Filed 06/01/12 Page 2 of 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

party is responsible for all items in “the responding party’s possession, custody, or

control.” Id. at 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is not required. 

Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the possession of a

non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has control

over the entity who is in possession of the document. Soto v. City of Concord, 162

F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D.Cal.1995). 

A motion to compel is appropriate where a party fails to produce relevant,

non-privileged documents requested pursuant to Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). 

The party seeking the motion to compel discovery has the burden of informing the

court why the defendant’s objections are not justified or why the defendants’

responses are deficient. Id.

Discussion

As an initial matter, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s Motion should be

dismissed because Plaintiff has not stated with particularity the grounds upon

which he is entitled to relief. Id. at 2. Defendants assert that Plaintiff fails to

address Defendants’ specific objections or give a reasonable explanation as to why

the Court should compel responses to his request for the production of documents. 

Id. 

Plaintiff does make specific arguments with regard to his Requests for

Production of Documents Nos. 14 and 15. As to these requests, Plaintiff addresses

Defendants’ objections, and explains why he believes he is entitled to the requested

discovery. (Doc. No. 70 at 4). 

As to the rest of Plaintiff’s requests, however, the Court agrees with

Defendants that Plaintiff has failed to state with specificity why he is entitled to

discovery. Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that Defendants’ objections are in bad

faith are not grounds for granting his Motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). 

Nevertheless, out of abundance of caution the Court conducted an independent

review of Plaintiff’s requests and Defendants’ responses and finds that Defendants’

3 09cv1334-WQH (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 81 Filed 06/01/12 Page 3 of 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

objections are proper, and that no additional discovery is warranted. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED as to all requests for discovery other than his

Requests for the Production of Documents Nos. 14 and 15. 

As to Plaintiff’s Requests for the Production of Documents Nos. 14 and 15,

Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

In Request No. 14, Plaintiff requests: 

Any and all documents, records and files generated by all 

the medical review boards and committees and meetings at 

CAL of defendant Thomas supervisory staff in their entirety 

regarding the reviews and approvals of all orders, reports, 

diagnosis and overall medical care of plaintiff done by 

Thomas in its entirety.

In Request No. 15, Plaintiff requests: 

Any and all documents created by the medical review 

boards, committees, and the CMO Fr. Martin Levin 

regarding and resulting from any and all complaints, 

grievances, 602 appeals and court actions filed on 

defendant Thomas regarding allegations of her medical 

negligence, incompetence, malpractice, deliberate 

indifference, wrongful death, gross negligence and failure 

to provide medical care from the first day of her 

employment to the last including all CMO’s and each and 

every CDCR prison adult &juvenile that she has worked at. 

All documents and info provided to CDCR by defendant 

Thomas regarding her medical education, training, work 

history, and all references and all discoverable records from

her employment file. 

Defendants objected to these requests as irrelevant and overly broad. 

Defendants contend that because Plaintiff’s claim against Thomas is for deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs, Plaintiff’s requests for documents regarding

any other alleged misconduct is irrelevant. 

As to Request No. 14, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART. 

Documents created by supervisory officials concerning Thomas’ treatment of

Plaintiff are relevant as they may bear on whether Thomas acted with deliberate

indifference towards the Plaintiff. While Defendants are correct that many of these

documents are protected by the official information privilege, that does not bar

discovery. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990). 

4 09cv1334-WQH (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 81 Filed 06/01/12 Page 4 of 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

Official information is discoverable if the potential benefit in discovery outweighs

any potential disadvantages. Id. Here, the Court finds that with regard to

documents created by Thomas’ supervisors that evaluate Thomas’ care or treatment

of the Plaintiff, the potential benefits outweigh the asserted privilege. As such,

Defendants are ORDERED to provide Plaintiff with the requested documents no

later than June 15, 2012. To the extent that Plaintiff’s request seeks any other

documents, it is DENIED.

As to Request No. 15, Plaintiff’s requests are overly broad and request

several categories of irrelevant documents. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant

Thomas allege that Thomas refused to examine him, lied about ordering pain

medication, and intimidated Plaintiff into removing his neck brace. As these are

specific allegations of deliberate action, documents regarding past instances of

Thomas’ negligence or malpractice are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claim. In the

alternative, Plaintiff argues that the requested documents are relevant as

impeachment evidence since Thomas has been designated as an expert. This does

not rescue Plaintiff’s requests. Mere allegations of past misconduct are not relevant

to Thomas’ credentials to testify as an expert. 

Only documents detailing past instances where Thomas was found to be

deliberately indifferent to patients or found to have improperly refused to treat

patients are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the Court will address

Defendants’ other objections as to this category of documents. As to all other

categories of documents, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 

As to documents detailing past instances where Thomas was found to have

improperly refused to treat patients or was found to have been deliberately

indifferent with regard to patient care, Defendants also object to Plaintiff’s requests

on the grounds that, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks Defendants’ personnel files,

responses may invade privacy rights of the Defendant or third parties and would

violate the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). 

5 09cv1334-WQH (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 81 Filed 06/01/12 Page 5 of 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

Defendants further object to disclosure of personnel files on the grounds that such

files are protected by the official information privilege. Plaintiff counters that he is

not seeking personnel records, he is only seeking documents pertaining to

allegations or complaints against Thomas. 

Defendants are correct that government personnel files are generally

considered official information. Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033. Id. Further weighing

against disclosure is the fact that many of the requested documents are likely to

contain confidential medical information of third parties which are protected from

unauthorized disclosure by HIPAA. Disclosure of the confidential medical

information of third parties requires that the party seeking discovery provide

assurances to the healthcare provider that reasonable efforts have been made to

secure a qualified protective order. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e). Plaintiff has provided

no such assurances and accordingly the Court will not order the disclosure of 

confidential medical information of third parties.

Weighing the possible benefits of discovery against both the Defendants’

asserted official information privilege, and the privacy concerns of third party

inmates, the Court finds that there is a narrow category of documents where

discovery is appropriate. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED as to any documents

created by supervisory officials evaluating Thomas’ refusal to treat patients and

finding it unjustified or finding that Thomas was deliberately indifferent to patient

needs. To the extent that such documents exist, and to the extent that they do not

contain the confidential medical information of third parties who have not

consented to disclosure, Defendants are ORDERED to produce such documents as

provided below. To the extent that such documents exist and include confidential

medical information of third parties who do not consent to disclosure, the

documents are to be produced with the identities and confidential medical

information that would tend to identify the third parties redacted. 

6 09cv1334-WQH (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 81 Filed 06/01/12 Page 6 of 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

Otherwise, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART. To the extent that Defendants have been ordered

to produce documents, such documents or a response stating that responsive

documents do not exist, must be served upon Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of the

date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 1, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

7 09cv1334-WQH (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 81 Filed 06/01/12 Page 7 of 7