Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00274/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00274-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONTE LEE BRIDGES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0274 FCD CMK P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS. et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, brings this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule

72-302 by the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Currently pending before the court are

plaintiff’s motions to compel. (Docs. 69 and 79.)

In his motion to compel, plaintiff seeks production of copies of “all his medical

and [psych] records obtained from 2/7/01 to 8/10/05 at High Desert State Prison and all medical

and [pysch] records obtained from 8/12/05 until the present at Lancaster State Prison, including

three recent hospitalizations at Antelope Valley Hospital....October 2 and 15, 2005 and December

1, 2005,” and he also requests “records of lockdowns at High Desert State Prison and Vacaville

from 1-01-01 to 8-10-05.” (Mot. to Compel, 1-2; Def.’s Response, Ex. A.) Defendants did not

produce the requested materials and responded that the request was (1) compound; (2) overly

Case 2:04-cv-00274-FCD-CMK Document 82 Filed 09/27/06 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

Defendants also claim that they were never served with the January 12, 2006 request for 1

information concerning prison lockdowns. (Def.’s Opp. to Mot. to Compel at 5.) 

2

broad; (3) call[ed] for information not likely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence; and (4)

calls for psychiatric information which may not be disclosed to plaintiff. (Mot. to Compel, 1-2.)

Defendants have filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion. 

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits discovery to

information that is “relevant to the subject matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P 26(b)(1). In his complaint,

plaintiff alleges that: (1) two doctors recommended single-man housing for him, but defendants

Baron, Shandham, Rohlfing, and Exum rejected the recommendation; (2) that a doctor

recommended soft shoes due to venous insufficiency in plaintiff’s left leg and foot problems, but

defendants Baron Sandham and Rohlfing rejected the recommendation; (3) defendant Rohlfing

refused to treat plaintiff’s heart and back conditions; and (4) defendant Brittle failed to resolve

issues concerning plaintiff’s need to be cell fed and provided with sack lunches. This conduct

took place on various dates between February 2002 and December 2003. Accordingly, medical

records before and after those dates are not relevant to plaintiff’s claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P

26(b)(1). Further, none of plaintiff’s allegations relate to lockdowns; therefore, the request for

information concerning lockdowns is not relevant to plaintiff’s claims. See id. The court finds 1

that plaintiff’s motion to compel all his medical records and records of lockdowns should be

denied. 

Rule 26(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may

limit discovery if it determines that “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs

its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties

resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation and the importance of the

proposed discovery in resolving the issues.” See Fed. R. Civ. P 26(b)(2); see also Daiflon, Inc. v.

Allied Chem. Corp., 534 F.2d 221, 225 (10th Cir. 1976) (stating when the burden of searching for

records is “substantially the same” for the party seeking discovery as for the responding party, the

Case 2:04-cv-00274-FCD-CMK Document 82 Filed 09/27/06 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

3

latter may answer by specifying the records from which the answer may be derived and making

them available for inspection). Defendants responded to plaintiff’s discovery request by referring

plaintiff to his medical file and identifying the process through which discovery could be

obtained. Although plaintiff alleges that he asked Correctional Counselor Thomas to review his

medical records and the request was denied, Correctional Counselor Thomas has no recollection

of such a request and there is no record of plaintiff submitting request to the medical department

to review his records. (See Def.’s Opp. to Mot. to Compel, Exs. C, D.) Given the breadth of

plaintiff’s request for medical records, his ability to access such records, and the minimal cost of

obtaining copies of such records, the court finds that granting plaintiff’s motion to compel is not

warranted. 

IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s motions to compel (docs. 69 and 79.)are

denied

DATED: September 26, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00274-FCD-CMK Document 82 Filed 09/27/06 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

Case 2:04-cv-00274-FCD-CMK Document 82 Filed 09/27/06 Page 4 of 4