Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00276/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00276-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BAJIT KAUR, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ALAMEIDA, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

CV F 05 276 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL 

[Doc 129]

Plaintiffs Baljit Kaur, Harnoor Kaur, Gurkirat Singh, and the estate of Khem Singh

(“plaintiffs”) filed a motion to compel for discovery and for sanctions on April 4, 2007. The

motion was heard on April 11, 2007 before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States

Magistrate Judge. Catherine Campbell and Carolyn Phillips appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. 

Alvin Gittisriboongul appeared on behalf of defendants.

BACKGROUND

Accordingly to the second amended complaint, Khem Singh, a 72 year old monolingual,

Punjabi-speaking elder at the time of his death, was incarcerated from October 15, 2001 until

February 16, 2004 at the California Department of Corrections Substance Abuse Treatment

Facility, Corcoran, California (“SATF”). Mr. Singh was a priest in the Sikh religion, which

prohibited him from eating meat or eggs and from eating any other food that was on the same

plate as meat. He was also disabled and in a wheelchair. Plaintiffs allege that throughout his

Case 1:05-cv-00276-OWW -DLB Document 150 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 5
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

incarceration, Mr. Singh was denied medical and mental health care, he was abused, assaulted

and harassed. Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Singh eventually retreated to his cell, refused food and

died of starvation on February 16, 2004, weighing 80 pounds.

DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel discovery and for sanctions on April 4, 2007

after defendants failed to respond to plaintiff’s Eighth, Ninth and Tenth requests for production

of documents and interrogatories. On April 22, 2007, plaintiffs filed a supplement to their

motion representing that on April 18, 2007 counsel received responses to the Eighth and Ninth

requests. Despite the responses, the following are still in dispute:

A. Plaintiff’s Ninth Request for Production of Documents.

Request No. 1: The Office of Investigative Services management’s investigation of the

report of the Office of Investigative Services’ investigation into the death of Khem Singh as

described in the Office of Inspector General, Quarterly Report, January -March 2005, page 7.

In response, defendants represent that they have produced the internal affairs report and

they have no additional documents responsive to this request. Plaintiffs state that defendants

have not produced the internal affairs report but have only produced summaries of statements of

witnesses interviewed by internal affairs. As discussed at the hearing, it appears that additional

documents responsive to this request may be in the custody of CDCR and will be covered by this

Court’s Order on plaintiff’s request for issuance of an Order to Show Cause. 

Request No. 3: The SATF Correctional Treatment Center Policy and Procedures Manual

for 2003-2004.

Defendants objected to the request as vague, ambiguous and overbroad but stated they

were attempting to locate the manual for the year 2003.

Plaintiffs argue that MTA Del Rosario testified that this manual was readily available to

all medical staff working in the CTC.

Defendants are ordered to produce all documents responsive to this request on or before

May 21, 2007. Failure to do so will result in further sanctions against defendants. 

Case 1:05-cv-00276-OWW -DLB Document 150 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Request No. 5: All documentation of Mr. Singh's work history by correctional guards,

including Officer Julius McKesson, at SATF in D5 during Mr. Singh's incarceration, as

referenced by Sonya Whitten in her deposition at pgs 36, 39, 40.

Defendants respond by stating that responsive documents would be in plaintiff's central

file, which has already been produced. 

Plaintiffs state that no such documents are in plaintiff's central file. 

Defendants are ordered to conduct a further search for responsive documents and produce

further documents within 30 days of this order. In doing so, defendants and counsel are

reminded of their duty under Rule 34 to conduct a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in effort

to obtain responsive documents. Defendants are obligated to produce all specified relevant and

non-privileged documents which are in their possession, custody or control. See

Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 34(a). It is sufficient if the document is in the possession of a person or entity

over whom the party has control or if that party has a legal right to obtain it. 

Request No. 6: The communications log kept in the D yard medical clinic at SATF by

MTA's for the purpose of passing information from one shift to the next, per testimony of MTA

Shaw, from 2001 through 2/16/04.

Defendants respond that they do not have such documents but believe documents

responsive to this request were confiscated by the Special Agent Jeff Finch, CDCR Internal

Affairs. Defendants also believe responsive documents have been produced by CDCR. 

The Court will address this request in the Order on plaintiff’s request for issuance of an

Order to Show Cause. 

B. Plaintiff’s Tenth Request for Production.

Defendants have failed to respond to plaintiff’s Tenth Request for Production of

Documents. Defendants are ordered to respond to this request, without objections, within 20

days of this Order. 

C. Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories to defendants Adams and Alameida.

On May 9 2007, plaintiff filed a second supplement to their motion to compel advising

the court that responses to the Interrogatories were received from defendants Adams and

Case 1:05-cv-00276-OWW -DLB Document 150 Filed 05/15/07 Page 3 of 5
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

Alameida on April 30, 2007. Plaintiffs argue the responses are inadequate and incomplete.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding defendants Adams and Alameida’s

responses to interrogatories. Should they be unable to resolve the issues the parties shall

schedule a hearing on the remaining interrogatories in dispute. Defendants are reminded that

their failure to provide timely responses to the interrogatories constitutes a waiver of any

objections to the interrogatories. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33(b)(4). Defendants are further

reminded that the party answering interrogatories must furnish “ such information as is available

to the party.” Fed. R.Civ.Proc. 33(a). This may include information known to persons in the

party’s employ or over whom they have control. This may also include information known to the

responding party’s lawyer, agents or employees. 

D. Sanctions

Based on defendants failure to respond to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents

and interrogatories until after the present motion was filed and defendants’ complete failure to

respond to plaintiff’s Tenth Request for production, defendants are ordered to pay plaintiffs’

attorneys’ fees associated with this motion. Plaintiff shall submit a declaration describing the

fees associated with this motion. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs’ motion is granted as follows:

1. Defendants are ordered to produce all documents responsive to Request No. 3 in

plaintiff’s Ninth Request for Production of Documents on or before May 21,

2007. Failure to do so will result in further sanctions against defendants;

2. Defendants are ordered to conduct a further search for documents responsive to

Request No. 5 of plaintiff’s Ninth Request for Production of Documents and

produce further documents within 30 days of this Order; 

3. Defendants are ordered to respond to plaintiff’s Tenth Request for Production of

Documents, without objections within 20 days of this Order; 

4. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding defendants Adams and

Alameida’s responses to interrogatories. Should they be unable to resolve the

Case 1:05-cv-00276-OWW -DLB Document 150 Filed 05/15/07 Page 4 of 5
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

issues the parties shall schedule a hearing on the remaining interrogatories in

dispute; and

5. Defendants are ordered to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees associated with this

motion. Plaintiff shall submit a declaration describing the fees associated with

this motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 15, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00276-OWW -DLB Document 150 Filed 05/15/07 Page 5 of 5