Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00247/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00247-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PAUL DEAN ROBERTS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-0247 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

I. Procedural History 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se who seeks relief pursuant to Title II 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This action was removed by defendants from 

state court and is proceeding on the Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 9 

 On December 11, 2012, the court issued an order to show cause and ordered that all 

pending deadlines were held in abeyance pending resolution of plaintiff’s motion to extend the 

discovery deadline based on the removal of his case file by prison authorities. ECF No. 23. By 

Order of July 19, 2013, this Court found no basis “for extending or re-opening discovery in this 

case,” but due to the circumstances presented, granted plaintiff leave to serve one set of requests 

for admissions on defendant. ECF No. 33 at 4. 

 On August 5, 2013, after the discovery deadline had passed, plaintiff filed a motion to 

Case 2:12-cv-00247-KJM-AC Document 49 Filed 01/09/14 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

compel responses to his first request for production of documents propounded in the summer of 

2012. Specifically, plaintiff seeks the specific policies, procedures and practices at High Desert 

State Prison and a copy of his medical records from July 2008. See ECF No. 34. Defendant filed 

an untimely opposition to this motion, together with a motion for leave to oppose out of time. 

ECF Nos. 35, 36. 

II. Timeliness of Motion to Compel 

 While the court does not look favorably on the filing of a motion to compel discovery 

more than a year after plaintiff received defendant’s response to his request for production of 

documents, the court also notes the delay that has been caused by defense counsel’s failure to 

timely comply with court orders and deadlines in this case. See ECF Nos. 27 (noting failure to 

respond to order to show cause); 44 (granting an extension of time of the dispositive motions 

deadline); 42 (same); 38 (same). In light of the litigation delays attributable to both parties, the 

court will exercise its discretion and entertain plaintiff’s untimely motion to compel as well as 

defendant’s untimely opposition thereto. 

The parties are further advised and cautioned that requests for extensions of time are the 

exception and not the norm. Multiple motions for extensions of time burden this court’s already 

over-burdened docket and should not be filed in a piecemeal manner. See Local Rule 144(d). 

III. Motion to Compel Further Response to Requests for Production of Documents 

 Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to his requests for production (RFP) nos. 1-6 

and 9 directed to the CDCR, in order to obtain the policies, practices, and procedures specific to 

High Desert State Prison as well as his prison medical records from July 2008. ECF No. 34 at 2-

4. Plaintiff indicates that he signed a release form requesting a copy of his prison medical records 

on December 31, 2012, but was later informed that he did not have adequate funds on his prison 

trust account to pay the costs associated with copying them. ECF No. 34 at 13 (declaration of 

Paul Dean Roberts). As a result, plaintiff requests that a copy be provided free of charge by 

defendant.1

 Id. 

 

1

 Since this case was removed from state court, defendant paid the $350 filing fees associated 

with this case. Therefore, plaintiff has not submitted any motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Case 2:12-cv-00247-KJM-AC Document 49 Filed 01/09/14 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

In opposition, defendant CDCR noted that documents responsive to plaintiff’s RFP nos. 1-

6 had just been located concerning the specific polices of the Central Treatment Center at High 

Desert State Prison where plaintiff was housed in July 2008. See ECF Nos. 36, 36-3 at 7-19. 

Therefore, defendant has supplemented their initial response to requests for production nos. 1-6. 

ECF No. 36-3 at 7-19. Defendant continues to object to request for production no. 9 related to 

plaintiff’s prison medical records from July 2008 arguing that they are equally available for 

plaintiff’s inspection and copying at his current prison. ECF Nos. 36 at 4, 36-1 at 5-6. 

III. Legal Standard 

 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party's claim or defense, and for good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant 

to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information need 

not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Id. 

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to 

compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. See e.g., Grabek 

v. Dickinson, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan.13, 2012); Womack v. Virga, 2011 WL 

6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011). This requires the moving party to inform the Court 

which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed 

response, why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party's objections are 

not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3. 

The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery, Hunt v. County of Orange, 

672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Survivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 

635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002), and where the 

discovery request seeks information which, based on the record, is clearly within the scope of 

discovery and the objection lacks merit, the Court may elect to exercise its discretion to reach the 

 

See ECF No. 1. However, the court takes judicial notice that plaintiff is proceeding in forma 

pauperis in Roberts v. Brown, 2:11-cv-0474-MCE-DAD. See Harris v. County of Orange, 682 

F.3d 1126, 1131-31 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Case 2:12-cv-00247-KJM-AC Document 49 Filed 01/09/14 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

merits of the dispute. See e.g., Marti v. Baires, 2012 WL 2029720, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jun.5, 2012); 

Williams v. Adams, 2009 WL 1220311, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2009). The court must limit 

discovery if the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(2)(C)(iii). “In each instance [of discovery], the determination whether ... information is 

discoverable because it is relevant to the claims or defenses depends on the circumstances of the 

pending action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory Committee's Note (2000 Amendment) (Gap 

Report) (Subdivision (b)(1). 

III. Analysis 

 Based on defendant’s supplemental response of October 22, 2013, it now appears that 

plaintiff’s motion to compel additional responses to his requests for production (RFP) nos. 1-6 is 

moot. The motion will accordingly be denied on this ground. 

 Regarding plaintiff’s motion to compel a copy of his prison medical records, the court 

notes that plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleges that he is a wheelchair-bound inmate who 

was discriminated against solely on account of his disability. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that 

after medical staff changed his mobility impairment designation, he needed placement in a 

wheelchair accessible cell at HDSP. ECF No. 9 at 7. Because there were no wheelchair 

accessible cells available, plaintiff was moved to the Correctional Treatment Center (CTC) at 

High Desert State Prison on July 4, 2008. ECF No. 9 at 8-9. Plaintiff alleges that while housed 

in the CTC he was denied access to his property, as well as yard and canteen privileges. Id. On 

August 1, 2008, plaintiff alleges that his disability designation code was once again changed to 

part-time wheelchair use not based on his improved medical condition, but rather due to the 

ongoing lack of a wheelchair accessible cell at HDSP. Id. at 11. Plaintiff therefore alleges that 

the CDCR violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

 Based on these allegations, plaintiff’s medical records from July 2008 appear relevant to 

plaintiff’s claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). While plaintiff’s placement in the CTC was 

allegedly due to an ADA housing shortage and not any decline in his medical condition, CDCR 

documents indicate that he was returned to HDSP when his health improved to the point that he 

no longer needed a wheelchair full-time. See ECF No. 9 at 51. Defendant does not contend that 

Case 2:12-cv-00247-KJM-AC Document 49 Filed 01/09/14 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

responding to this request would be overly burdensome. In fact, defendant submits plaintiff’s 

medical records from 2008 through 2011 as exhibits attached to its motion for summary 

judgment. See ECF Nos. 46-5 at 9-102, 46-6 at 1-88. However, there are no records from July 

2008 included in these exhibits. Therefore, to the extent any such records exist, plaintiff’s motion 

to compel additional responses to his requests for production (RFP) no. 9 will be granted. 

IV. Summary Judgment Opposition Deadline 

 The Court takes notice that defendant filed a motion for summary judgment while 

plaintiff’s motion to compel was pending. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment motion 

is currently due by January 26, 2014. See ECF No. 44. Given the extensions of the dispositive 

motions deadline that have been granted to defendant as well as plaintiff's pro se status, the Court 

finds good cause to extend plaintiff's deadline to submit his opposition to defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel further production of documents from defendant CDCR 

(ECF No. 34) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 

a) Denied as to RFP Nos. 1-6 based on mootness; 

b) Granted as to RFP No. 9. 

2. Defendant is ordered to provide a copy of plaintiff’s medical records from July 2008 

within 30 days from the date of this order. 

3. Plaintiff’s time to file an opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment 

(ECF No. 46) is extended to thirty days from the date of receipt of his medical records from 

defendant. 

3. Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be filed within seven days thereafter. 

DATED: January 8, 2014 

Case 2:12-cv-00247-KJM-AC Document 49 Filed 01/09/14 Page 5 of 5