Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02276/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02276-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HIPOLITO M. CHACOAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2276 FCD GGH P

vs.

DR. ROHRER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel filed March 13, 2007. 

To put plaintiff’s motion in context, the court will set forth the following background

information.

Plaintiff alleges that while housed at California State Prison-Solano (CSPSolano), he suffered from a reoccurring ear infection beginning in August 2000. In 2003 plaintiff

suffered a total loss of hearing in his left ear. Plaintiff alleges that defendants provided

inadequate medical care for his ear infection in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

In the motion to compel, plaintiff alleges that defendants provided inadequate

responses to his request for production of documents. Request no. 1 sought “[a]ny and all

medical/psychiatric records in the possession of defendants...or their agents, that relate to the

Case 2:05-cv-02276-MCE-KJN Document 33 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 6
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

2

medical treatment of plaintiff since August 2000.” Without waiving objections, defendants

stated that they would provide plaintiff with an uncertified copy of his California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) medical records after plaintiff provided written

authorization. Defendants provided plaintiff with a copy of an authorization form to sign and

return to defense counsel. In the opposition to the motion to compel, defendants state that

plaintiff did not return the form. In the motion to compel, plaintiff does not state why he did not

return the form.

Plaintiff will receive the documents he is requesting if he signs and returns the

authorization form to defense counsel. For this reason, the motion to compel is denied as to this

request.

Request no. 2 sought any and all policies and procedures concerning the Medical

Service Care at Solano State Prison during the years 2000 through 2006. Defendants objected

that the request was overbroad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome and oppressive. Defendants also

claimed not to have these documents in their possession.

Request no. 2 is overbroad because not every policy or procedure concerning

medical care at CSP-Solano from 2000-2006 is relevant to this action. For this reason, the

motion to compel is denied as to this request.

Request no. 3 sought any and all health care records maintained by Solano State

Prison on plaintiff during the period he has been incarcerated there. Without waiving objections,

defendants stated that they would provide plaintiff with an uncertified copy of his CDC medical

records after plaintiff provided written authorization from plaintiff. Plaintiff will receive the

documents he is requesting if he signs and returns the authorization form to defense counsel. For

this reason, the motion to compel is denied as to this request.

Request no. 4 sought all letters, administrative appeals, grievances or complaints

filed against defendants Rohrer, Naku, Solomon, Rallos, Thor and Hall within the past six years. 

Defendants objected that the request was overbroad, vague and ambiguous. Defendants also

Case 2:05-cv-02276-MCE-KJN Document 33 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 6
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

objected that the information sought was confidential and not in their possession.

Request no. 4 is overbroad because not every letter, administrative appeal,

grievance or complaint filed against defendants during the past six years is relevant to this action. 

For this reason, the motion to compel as to this request is denied.

Request no. 5 sought all lawsuits for deliberate indifference of medical care,

malpractice or other related matters filed against defendant Rohrer, Naku, Solomon, Rallos, Thor

and Hall in the past. Defendants objected that the request was overbroad, vague and ambiguous. 

Defendants also objected that the information sought was confidential and not in their

possession.

Request no. 5 is overbroad because not every lawsuit filed against defendants in

the past alleging inadequate medical care is relevant to this action. For this reason, the motion to

compel as to this request is denied.

Request no. 6 sought any and all actions that defendants Rorher, Naku, Solomon,

Rallos, Thor and Hall had knowledge or information regarding, which were reviewed or

considered by the State Medical Board regarding their practice. Defendants objected that the

request was overbroad, vague and ambiguous. Defendants also objected that the information

sought was confidential and not in their possession.

Request no. 6 is overbroad because not every action filed with the State Medical

Board regarding defendants is relevant to this action. For this reason, the motion to compel as to

this request is denied.

Request no. 7 sought a copy of any of plaintiff’s medical records regarding the

treatment of his reoccurring ear infection at Solano State Prison since August 2000. Without

waiving objections, defendants stated that they would provide plaintiff with an uncertified copy

of his CDCR medical records after plaintiff provided written authorization from plaintiff. 

Plaintiff will receive the documents he is requesting if he signs and returns the authorization

form to defense counsel. For this reason, the motion to compel is denied as to this request.

Case 2:05-cv-02276-MCE-KJN Document 33 Filed 07/24/07 Page 3 of 6
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

4

Request no. 8 sought all policies and procedures that establish the duties of

defendants Rohrer, Naku, Solomon, Rallos, Thor and Hall while they were employed at Solano

State Prison. Defendants objected that the request was argumentative, vague and ambiguous as it

was not clear what plaintiff meant by “policies and procedures that establish the duties” of

defendants. Defendants also objected that the request was overbroad, sought confidential

information and the information sought was not in their possession.

The court agrees that request no. 8 is ambiguous and overbroad. It is not clear

whether plaintiff is seeking, for example, CDCR policies or policies exclusive to CSP-Solano. 

Moreover, not every document discussing defendants’ duties is relevant to this action. For these

reasons, the motion to compel as to this request is denied.

Request no. 9 sought all medical notes, information, data, files or records in the

possession of defendants Rohrer, Naku, Solomon, Rallos, Thor and Hall related to plaintiff. 

Defendants objected that the request was vague, ambiguous and overbroad. Defendants also

objected that to the extent the request sought correspondences between defendants and counsel,

the information was protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product rule. 

Defendants’ objections have merit. For example, notes regarding defendants’ treatment of

plaintiff regarding ailments unrelated to his ear infection are not relevant. Accordingly, the

motion to compel as to this request is denied.

Request no. 10 sought any and all records, files, documents or papers related to

administrative appeals filed by plaintiff against defendants Rohrer, Naku, Solomon, Rallos, Thor

and Hall. Defendants objected that the request was vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The

request is overbroad as administrative appeals filed by plaintiff against defendants regarding

matters other than his ear infection are not relevant to this action. Accordingly, the motion to

compel as to this request is denied.

Request no. 11 sought all records, documents, files or data of any individual

related to the medical treatment of plaintiff for ear infections while housed at Solano State

Case 2:05-cv-02276-MCE-KJN Document 33 Filed 07/24/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Prison, any medical treatment plaintiff did nor did not receive regarding his ear infection and any

information regarding the medical treatment administered to plaintiff by defendants.

Defendants objected that the request was vague, ambiguous and overbroad. 

Defendants also objected that the response calls for speculation as to what individuals have the

knowledge or possess the information described by this request. Assuming plaintiff was

requesting copies of documents in control of third parties, defendants objected that they could not

comply with the request.

The court agrees that this request is vague and ambiguous. In any event, it

appears that this request will be satisfied by plaintiff’s receipt of his medical records after he

submits the authorization form to defense counsel. Accordingly, the motion to compel as to this

request is denied.

Request no. 12 sought all records, files, documents or papers from specialists who

examined plaintiff since 2000. Defendants objected that the request was vague, ambiguous and

overbroad. Assuming plaintiff was requesting copies of documents in control of third parties,

defendants objected that they could not comply with the request.

The court agrees that this request is vague and overbroad. Records of

examinations by specialists for ailments other than plaintiff’s ear infections would not be

relevant to this action. As worded, this request could be seeking medical records possessed by

persons other than defendants. For these reasons, the motion to compel as to this request is

denied.

For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

On May 4, 2007, defendants filed a motion to compel. Plaintiff did not file an

opposition. Accordingly, on June 28, 2007, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause for his

failure to file an opposition. On July 12, 2007, plaintiff filed a response to the show cause order.

The court observes that on June 27, 2007, defendants filed a summary judgment

motion. Based on this filing, it does not appear that defendants require further responses by

Case 2:05-cv-02276-MCE-KJN Document 33 Filed 07/24/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

plaintiff to discovery requests in order to litigate this motion. Accordingly, the court will vacate

defendants’ motion to compel. Defendants may re-notice their motion following resolution of

the summary judgment motion, if appropriate.

The court will grant plaintiff an opportunity to send defense counsel the

completed authorization form so that he may obtain his medical records. The court will order

plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion due following his receipt of these

records.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed March 13, 2007, is denied;

2. Defendants’ motion to compel filed May 4, 2007, is vacated;

3. Plaintiff is granted twenty days from the date of this order to serve defense

counsel with the form authorizing defendants to provide him with his medical records;

defendants shall provide plaintiff with these records within ten days of the date of the receipt of

the form;

4. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion is due within

sixty days of the date of this order. 

DATED: 7/24/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

chac2276.ord

Case 2:05-cv-02276-MCE-KJN Document 33 Filed 07/24/07 Page 6 of 6