Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00182/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00182-29/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY H. SOLVEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES TILTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00182-LJO-GSA PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRODUCTION OF AUTHENTICATED

MEDICAL FILE

(Doc. 109)

On February 9, 2010, Plaintiff Stanley H. Solvey, a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action, filed a motion seeking the production of an authenticated copy of his medical file.

Plaintiff may not seek discovery from the Court, and therefore, his request that the Court directly

order the production of the file from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

is denied. 

Further, the discovery phase of this litigation was open for more than a year. This document

request should have been directed to Defendants via a timely request for the production of

documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. There is no indication Plaintiff timely sought to obtain these

documents during discovery, and although Plaintiff is correct that Defendant Bradshawonlyrecently

filed an answer, Plaintiff has made no showing that these documents were only obtainable from

Bradshaw. Indeed, any such representation would lack merit given that the defendants in this action

include the warden, the chief medical officer, and other prison medical personnel. Bradshaw, on the

other hand, was a contract employee, so any suggestion that she, and only she, had care, custody, or

control over Plaintiff’s medical file is simply not supportable. As a result, her recent appearance in

1

Case 1:07-cv-00182-LJO-GSA Document 110 Filed 02/19/10 Page 1 of 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

this action is not cause to allow further discovery for the purpose of allowing Plaintiff to obtain his

medical file. Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of due diligence and Plaintiff

has made no such showing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

Finally, this issue was previously addressed by the Court. (Docs. 90, 96.) On October 23,

2009, the parties were directed to file status reports regarding the need for further discovery. (Doc.

90.) The order requiring status reports was issued because the Court discovered that its previous

order extending the discovery deadline to September 30, 2009, had not been served and the Court

wanted to ensure that the parties were not been prejudiced with respect to completing discovery due

to the error. Defendants did not need any further discovery, and Plaintiff set forth five apparently

new discovery requests in his status report, one of which was for his medical file. (Doc. 93.) 

Plaintiff was informed that he could not seek discovery via requests set forth for the first time in his

status report, and Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he had tried to obtain the documents from

Defendants through discovery. (Doc. 96.) Because Plaintiff did not make any showing of due

diligence or prejudice resulting from the service error, the Court declined to further extend the

discovery deadline. (Id.) 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the production of an authenticated copy of

his medical file, filed February 9, 2010, is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 19, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-00182-LJO-GSA Document 110 Filed 02/19/10 Page 2 of 2