Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022-92/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Troas Barnett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction. (Plaintiff’s consent, ECF No. 9; Defendants’ consent, ECF No. 62.) This action proceeds 

on Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants Gamboa, Duran, and Torres used excessive physical force 

against him in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution 

and that Defendant Torres failed to intervene to protect Plaintiff from harm in violation of his rights 

under the Eighth Amendment. A jury trial is set to commence in this matter on February 23, 2016.

On November 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of MRIs of his skull taken 

in December 2005. (ECF No. 348.) He attaches a radiology report in his possession discussing the 

MRIs and the relevant medical findings, (Id. at 4.), and therefore he appears to seek the production of 

the film images themselves. Defendants oppose the motion, noting that the MRI films are not in their 

possession, custody or control, and that Plaintiff’s sole means of obtaining them is through the 

issuance of a subpoena duces tecum pursuant to Rule 34, which he did not seek while discovery was 

TROAS V. BARNETT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:05-cv-01022-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRODUCTION OF THE MRI’S OF PLAINTIFF’S 

SKULL (SERIES) TAKEN BY MARIO DEGUCHI 

DECEMBER OF 2005 BE PRODUCED AT THE 

SCHEDULED JURY TRIAL OF FEBRUARY 23, 

2016 AT 8:30 A.M. IN COURTROOM 8#

(ECF No. 348)

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 372 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

open. (ECF No. 355, pp. 1-2.) Furthermore, Defendants argue that the presentation of the MRI film 

images would require expert witness testimony, but Plaintiff has no appropriate expert, and therefore 

the films would not be admissible even if produced. (Id. at 2-3.) The parties were heard on this matter 

on December 17, 2015, at which time Plaintiff admitted that Defendants do not possess the MRIs.

Since discovery has long been closed in this matter, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is untimely. 

He has provided no justification showing good cause for this untimely attempt to reopen discovery. 

Furthermore, even if Plaintiff’s motion were timely, it has no merit. Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 34, a party may request an opposing party to produce “any designated documents . . . which 

are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

34(a). Documents are in the “possession, custody, or control” of the served party if “the party has 

actual possession, custody, or control, or has the legal right to obtain the documents on demand.” In re 

Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995). Several years ago in this matter, in June 2011, 

Plaintiff was informed that the MRIs he seeks are not in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, 

but rather would likely be in Plaintiff’s medical file at the institution where he is housed. Despite this 

information, Plaintiff did not attempt to issue a subpoena duces tecum to the proper entity to obtain 

those documents. These matters were in fact the subject of a prior order, in which the Court explained 

these findings to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 104.) Since Plaintiff’s motion is untimely, and because 

Defendants do not have actual possession or the legal right to obtain the MRIs he seeks to compel 

them to produce, his motion to compel is denied. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for production of the MRIs of 

Plaintiff’s skull (series) taken by Mario Deguchi December of 2005 be produced at the scheduled jury 

trial of February 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 8#, (ECF No. 348), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 372 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 2