Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06658/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06658-16/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALMIEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06658-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL

(Doc. 166)

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE

OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER, DEFENDANT

SHALL SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL

RESPONSE TO RFA 5, AND PLAINTIFF

SHALL RE-DRAFT AND RE-SERVE RFAS 7

AND 8

ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL DISPOSITIVE

MOTION DEADLINE FOR NOVEMBER 30,

2007 

I. Order

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff William Garcia (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was proceeding on

plaintiff’s complaint, filed November 24, 2003, against defendants Snow, Nguyen, Smith, Ramirez,

Bradish, and Katukota for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs,

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Docs. 1, 16, 40.) The only remaining claim is plaintiff’s

claim against defendant Katukota. (Doc. 135.) Defendant Katukota (“defendant”) was personally

served on April 11, 2006, and she filed an answer on May 1, 2006. (Docs. 141, 142.) On May 2,

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 173 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 8
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

2006, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order, under which the deadline for the completion

of all discovery, including filing motions to compel, was September 13, 2006. (Doc. 143.) 

On October 20, 2006, the court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel filed

August 30, 2006, and granting plaintiff thirty days within which to cure the deficiencies identified

by the court and re-file the motion. (Doc. 165.) The discovery deadline was extended, contingent

upon plaintiff re-filing his motion to compel and limited to the discovery at issue in the motion. (Id.)

On November 22, 2006, plaintiff re-filed his motion to compel. (Doc. 166.) Defendant filed an

opposition on December 12, 2006, and plaintiff filed a reply on December 21, 2006. (Docs. 168,

169.)

B. Renewed Motion to Compel

1. Interrogatories

Defendant is required to “furnish such information as is available” to her in responding to

plaintiff’s interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). 

ROG 2: “State the date and place of each and every occasion of which defendant had

occasion to render care and treatment to or on behalf of plaintiff.”

Objection: Vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unintelligible; oppressive and burdensome

to the extent the information is in plaintiff’s medical records and equally available to him; and the

defendant is unable to recall because she is no longer working at the prison and does not have access

to plaintiff’s medical records. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response is denied. Absent evidence to the contrary,

which has not been offered, the court and plaintiff must accept defendant’s response that she does

not have access to the information needed to respond to this interrogatory because she is no longer

employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). 

However, defendant will undoubtedly find a way to access this information as she prepares

to defend herself in this suit, either via a motion for summary judgment or at trial. When and if

defendant encounters information enabling her to respond to this interrogatory, defendant is

obligated to serve plaintiff with supplemental responses to this question, limited to the timeframe

relevant to plaintiff’s claim in this action and re-framed in two subparts as follows: State the dates

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 173 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 8
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

plaintiff was seen by defendant for medical treatment, and state the locations at which plaintiff was

seen by defendant for medical treatment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). 

ROG 11: “Did defendant at any time send plaintiff to a outside specialist for treatment

and/or for a diagnosis.”

Objection: Vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, and compound; oppressive and

burdensome to the extent the information is in plaintiff’s medical records and equally available to

him; and the information is unavailable to defendants because she does not have access to plaintiff’s

medical records. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response is denied. Absent evidence to the contrary,

which has not been offered, the court and plaintiff must accept defendant’s response that she does

not have access to the information needed to respond to this interrogatory because she is no longer

employed by CDCR. 

However, if in the future defendant encounters information enabling her to respond to this

interrogatory, defendant is obligated to serve plaintiff with supplemental responses to this question,

limited to the time frame relevant to plaintiff’s claim in this action and re-framed as follows: Did

defendant refer plaintiff to an outside specialist?

ROG 12: “State the reason why plaintiff was not sent to an outside specialist.”

Objection: Vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, compound, and assumes facts;

oppressive and burdensome to the extent the information isin plaintiff’s medical records and equally

available to him; and the information is unavailable to defendant because she does not have access

to plaintiff’s medical records and she is unable to recall whether or not plaintiff was sent to an

outside specialist or whether she referred plaintiff to an outside specialist. 

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response is denied. Absent evidence to the contrary,

which has not been offered, the court and plaintiff must accept defendant’s response that she does

not have access to the information needed to respond to this interrogatory because she is no longer

employed by CDCR. 

However, if in the future defendant encounters information enabling her to respond to this

interrogatory, defendant is obligated to serve plaintiff with a supplemental response to this question,

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 173 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 8
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

limited to the time frame relevant to plaintiff’s claim in this action and re-framed as follows: If the

answer to interrogatory 11 is no, why not?

2. Production of Documents

Defendant is required to furnish documents which are in her “possession, custody or control”

in responding to plaintiff’s request for the production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). 

POD 1: “Please produce all documents that evidence, mention, orrefer to plaintiff’s chronic

medical condition.”

Objection: Defendant no longer has access to plaintiff’s medical records because she no

longer works for CDCR.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response is denied. Absent evidence to the contrary,

which has not been offered, the court and plaintiff must accept defendant’s response that she does

not have access to these documents because she is no longer employed by CDCR. 

POD 2: “Please produce all documents that evidence, mention or refer to 7362 medical

request forms and responses.”

Objection: Defendant no longer has access to plaintiff’s medical records because she no

longer works for CDCR.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response is denied. Absent evidence to the contrary,

which has not been offered, the court and plaintiff must accept defendant’s response that she does

not have access to these documents because she is no longer employed by CDCR. 

POD 3: “Please produce CDC’s Policies and Procedures on the proper medical procedure

of maintaining 7362 medical request forms.”

Objection: Vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, and lacks foundation, and

defendant no longer works for CDCR and does not have access to policies and procedures.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response is denied. Absent evidence to the contrary,

which has not been offered, the court and plaintiff must accept defendant’s response that she does

not have access to these documents because she is no longer employed by CDCR. 

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 173 Filed 05/10/07 Page 4 of 8
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

3. Requests for Admission

A request for admission requires a defendant admit or deny a fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). It

is permissible for a defendant to fail to admit or deny a fact by stating that he or she lacks

information or knowledge to admit or deny the fact. Id. 

RFA 4: “Admit that after a consultation that you put the 7362 medical request form back

into the inmate/patients Unit Health Record (UHR).”

Objection: Vague, ambiguous, overbroad, assumes facts, and presents an incomplete

hypothetical. Without waiving the objections, “[t]he form is put into the health records by a variety

of persons, not usually the doctor.”

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff argues in his motion to compel that

each time he saw her, defendant read the form 7362 and placed it into his medical file. Plaintiff’s

request for admission is not drafted to obtain the information plaintiff apparently seeks. Plaintiff did

not ask defendant to admit or deny that at each consultation he had with her, she read and placed the

form 7362 in his Unit Health Record. Absent evidence that defendant’s response is untruthful,

plaintiff is required to accept her answer as given.

RFA 5: “Admit that the 7362 medical request forms are a permanent document in my

medical file per CDC’s policies and procedures.”

Objection: Vague, ambiguous, overbroad, assumes facts, and presents an incomplete

hypothetical. Denied in that defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to respond.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response is granted. A party may fail to admit

or deny a fact based on lack of information or knowledge if the party states he or she has made a

reasonable inquiry and the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to allow him or

her to admit or deny the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). Defendant did not assert that she made a

reasonable inquiry.

Defendant has thirty days to serve a supplemental response to this request, re-framed as

follows: Admit or deny that pursuant to CDCR policy, 7362 forms are a permanent part of an

inmate’s medical file. If, after making a reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily 

///

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 173 Filed 05/10/07 Page 5 of 8
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

6

obtainable is insufficient to allow defendant to admit or deny this fact, plaintiff is required to accept

that answer.

RFA 7: “Admit that exhibit (11) is a copy of a 7362 medical request form, and also admit

that the other 7362 medical request forms are completed forms as far as you can tell. This is a two

part question please answer both.”

Objection: Vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, assumes facts, presents an

incomplete hypothetical, and Exhibit 11 was not attached. Denied in that defendant is unable to

respond or lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to respond.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff failed to attach Exhibit 11 to his

discovery request and therefore failed to provide defendant with the information necessary to

respond to this request. It is irrelevant that defendant’s counsel may be in possession of the exhibit

because it was sent at some other time, as plaintiff argues in his motion. If plaintiff is asking

defendant to admit or deny something and the admission or denial requires referring to a document,

plaintiff must supply the document with his request.

Plaintiff may re-serve this request on defendant within thirty days with the exhibit attached.

The request is re-framed as follows: Admit or deny that Exhibit 11 is a CDCR form 7362.

Defendant’s objections as to the second part of this request are sustained and the court declines to

allow plaintiff to re-serve the request. The forms submitted as exhibits by plaintiff were revised in

2004, after this suit was filed and after defendant left CDCR. (Doc. 166, court record pgs 38-46.)

Defendant’s argument that responding to this part of plaintiff’s request would require speculation

is well taken.

RFA 8: “Admit that all of the exhibits that bare your name/signature on them are yours.”

Objection: Vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, and defendant is not sure what

exhibits plaintiff is referring to.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff failed to attach the referenced

exhibits to his discovery request and therefore failed to provide defendant with the information

necessary to respond to this request. It is irrelevant that defendant’s counsel may be in possession

of the exhibit because it was sent at some other time, as plaintiff argues in his motion. If plaintiff

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 173 Filed 05/10/07 Page 6 of 8
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

7

is asking defendant to admit or deny something and the admission or denial requires referring to a

document, plaintiff must supply the document with his request.

Plaintiff may re-serve this request on defendant within thirty days with the exhibits attached.

The request is re-framed as follows: Admit or deny that the signature on Exhibits [plaintiff to

specifically identify the attached exhibits by letter or number] is yours.

C. Deadline for Filing Pretrial Dispositive Motions

The discovery phase of this litigation has concluded, with the exception of RFAs 5, 7, and

8, discussed in this order. Those outstanding issues should be resolved in their finality in

approximately ninety days at the latest. Accordingly, the deadline for filing pretrial dispositive

motions is set for November 30, 2007.

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed November 22, 2006, is GRANTED as to RFA 5

and defendant shall serve a supplemental response within thirty (30) days from the

date of service of this order;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed November 22, 2006, is DENIED as to all other

requests; 

3. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within which to

re-serve RFAs 7 and 8, as re-framed and limited in this order;

4. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of defendant’s response to

RFA 5 to file a motion to compel if necessary, defendant has thirty (30) days from

the date of service of plaintiff’s re-drafted RFAs 7 and 8 to serve a response, and

plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service defendant’s response to RFAs

7 and 8 to file a motion to compel if necessary; and

///

///

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 173 Filed 05/10/07 Page 7 of 8
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

8

5. The deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is November 30, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 173 Filed 05/10/07 Page 8 of 8