Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03759/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03759-7/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Plaintiff initially sought leave to take nine depositions, but in his reply, he stated that he

no longer needed Dr. Welton’s deposition. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD ASHKER,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C 05-03759 CW (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND

PERMIT WRITTEN DEPOSITIONS

On October 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Permit

Written Depositions. On November 8, 2007, Defendants filed an opposition to this motion. On

November 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed a reply. In his motion, Plaintiff seeks documents responsive to

his fifth set of requests for production of documents served on September 5, 2007 and leave to take

eight written depositions.1

 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks a stay of the summary judgment briefing

schedule, he should direct that request to Judge Wilken or file a request under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56(f) in response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment if he can meet the

requirements of that Rule. The Court has carefully reviewed the briefs and the record in this case

and issues the following Order.

Requests for production of documents

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion is moot with respect to the fifth set of requests for

production of documents because Defendants have produced responsive documents. Plaintiff,

however, has shown that at least some responsive documents have not been produced. For example,

Plaintiff’s request number 3(B) sought “all medical records in Ashker’s medical file for the time

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 186 Filed 12/05/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

period covering September 1, 2006 up to and including the present date.” Defendant states that it

produced all documents from September 1, 2006 through August 14, 2007. However, even giving

Plaintiff’s request the narrowest construction, the “present date” for purposes of the request was

September 5, 2007, the date the requests were served. Plaintiff states in his declaration that

Defendants have not produced an August 23, 2007 report from Dr. Martinelli and a September 5,

2007 x-ray report. See Reply Decl. Ex. A at 2. There is no explanation for Defendants’ unilateral

limitation on the time period for this request. Defendants shall produce Plaintiff’s medical records

for the time frame from September 1, 2006 through September 5, 2007. Accordingly, the motion to

compel with respect to the requests for production is not moot. 

Plaintiff seeks copies of photographs taken of his cell on July 25, 2007. See Ashker Decl. in

Support of Mot. to Compel Ex. B, request 1. In his motion, Plaintiff stated that he had received poor

quality black and white photos. Defendants objected to production of the photographs as irrelevant,

yet apparently produced black and white copies to Plaintiff. Therefore, if and only to the extent that

Defendants have color photos, or better quality black and white images, Plaintiff’s motion is granted

and Defendants shall produce them to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff seeks documents relating to the photographing of his cell on July 25, 2007. See

Ashker Decl. in Support of Mot. to Compel Ex. B, request 2. Plaintiff states that he received a

chrono about an inspection of his cell on July 19, 2007, but no information about the photographs

taken on July 25, 2007. If and only to the extent that there is a chrono about photographs taken on

July 25, 2007, Plaintiff’s motion is granted and Defendants shall produce the chrono. 

Plaintiff seeks documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s Tramadol medication ordered on January

9, 2006. See Ashker Decl. in Support of Mot. to Compel Ex. B, request 3(A). According to

Plaintiff, Defendants produced a January 9, 2005 medication order (see Ashker Decl. in Support of

Reply Ex. D at 4), that Plaintiff states is for Tylenol, not Tramadol. To the extent that there is

another medication order for Tramadol from January 9, 2006, Plaintiff’s motion is granted and

Defendants shall produce the order. 

Plaintiff seeks documents pertaining to Dr. Sayre’s statement in his declaration that

Tramadol has significant abuse problems at the prison. See Ashker Decl. in Support of Mot. to

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 186 Filed 12/05/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Plaintiff misspelled MAXOR in his requests, instead seeking documents for MAJOR

pharmacy. 

3

Compel Ex. B, request 4. One of Plaintiff’s claims is that he was wrongfully denied Tramadol, so

documents relating to Dr. Sayre’s statements of Tramadol abuse are at least relevant for purposes of

discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part as to these documents. If there are

documents on which Dr. Sayre relied in making his statement about Tramadol and/or that establish a

significant abuse problem with Tramadol at the prison, Defendants shall produce those documents. 

Plaintiff seeks documents regarding the prison’s policy to limit prescribed medications. See

Ashker Decl. in Support of Mot. to Compel Ex. B, request 5. Plaintiff alleges injury to himself,

rather than a systemic injury. Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to this request. 

Plaintiff seeks documents related to the MAR committee. See Ashker Decl. in Support of

Mot. to Compel Ex. B, request 6(A). Defendants have responded that no responsive documents

exist. If there are no responsive documents, Defendants shall serve a declaration on Plaintiff

describing the search done for documents and attesting that no documents exist. 

Plaintiff seeks documents relating to guidelines and criteria for the authorization of nonformulary medications. See Ashker Decl. in Support of Mot. to Compel Ex. B, request 6(C). 

Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to any additional documents. Plaintiff has not shown how these

documents are relevant to his case. 

Plaintiff seeks documents relating to all medications available from “MAXOR” pharmacy.2

See Ashker Decl. in Support of Mot. to Compel Ex. B, request 6(D). Plaintiff’s motion is denied as

to these documents. Plaintiff has not shown how a list of medications from a certain pharmacy is

relevant to his case. 

Plaintiff seeks orders, memoranda or directives from CDCR Headquarters relating to cutting

back medications and medical services to inmates. See Ashker Decl. in Support of Mot. to Compel

Ex. B, request 6(E). If there are any such orders, memoranda or directives that were applicable to

Plaintiff, they would be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is granted and

Defendants shall produce any responsive documents for the time period from January 2005 (the first

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 186 Filed 12/05/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

month of the year when Plaintiff first alleges in the supplemental complaint that his medications

were cut back) to June 18, 2007 (the date of the filing of the supplemental complaint) or shall serve

a declaration from a knowledgeable person stating that no such documents exist. 

Plaintiff seeks documents showing federal and manufacturers guidelines stating that

Tramadol is not indicated for long-term use. See Ashker Decl. in Support of Mot. to Compel Ex. B,

request 7. Defendants have produced the federal and manufacturers guidelines about Tramadol. No

further production is necessary. Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to this request. 

Written depositions

In additional to the nine written depositions Plaintiff had already taken in this case, Plaintiff

seeks eight additional depositions. While the presumptive limit on depositions under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is ten, the Court is inclined to grant leave for Plaintiff to take some

additional depositions, with strict limitations, only with respect to the issues raised in Plaintiff’s

supplemental complaint. Subject to the additional specific limitations described below, which are

derived from Plaintiff’s statement of the reasons he wishes to depose each individual, each written

deposition shall be limited to 35 questions with no subparts. 

Plaintiff may take Dr. Sayre’s written deposition, but questioning must be limited to

Plaintiff’s specific medical issues, not, for example, Plaintiff’s allegation that Dr. Sayre has a

“history of causing death and other injuries to inmates.” Plaintiff may take the depositions of Dr.

Rowe, Dr. David, Ms. McLean and Ms. Rosenhoover, but questioning must be limited to Plaintiff’s

medical records, 602 appeals involving Plaintiff and statements made in the deponents’ prior

declarations. Plaintiff may depose Dr. Winslow only on the issue of Dr. Winslow’s treatment of

Plaintiff. Plaintiff may depose Mr. Dodgen regarding his treatment of Plaintiff only, not treatment

of other inmates. Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing of relevancy to depose Dr. Duncan,

because Dr. Duncan has not treated Plaintiff since 2002. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2007

_______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 186 Filed 12/05/07 Page 4 of 4