Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02036/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02036-0/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

LANCE JETT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-2036 GEB JFM P

vs.

M. PENNER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to court order, this matter came on for discovery conference on

December 14, 2006. Frank Riebli, Esq. appeared as counsel for plaintiffs. James Walter, Deputy

Attorney General, appeared as counsel for defendants. Jeffrey Townsend, Esq. appeared as

counsel for third party California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). 

This matter was set for discovery conference following hearing on plaintiff’s

motion to compel production of documents subpoenaed from third party CDCR. At the time of

that hearing it appeared the parties were still in the process of resolving the issues raised in the

motion. Accordingly, resolution of the matter was deferred to the time of the discovery

conference set herein.

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02036-GEB -JFM Document 94 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 4
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

The parties and third party CDCR filed statements in advance of the conference. 

Therein, plaintiff withdrew his motion as to one of the disputed requests. In all other respects, it

was apparent from the statements that subsequent discovery had heightened the outstanding

disputes and that the parties were no closer to resolution thereof than at the time of the hearing. 

Remaining in dispute are plaintiff’s request numbers 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. 

By request # 8, plaintiff sought all documents related to any grievances filed by plaintiff. CDCR

objected to the request on several grounds and has produced no records. One of the objections

raised by CDCR focuses on the fact that plaintiff’s request is not limited to grievances arising

from the events at bar. In addition, at the discovery conference, counsel for both plaintiff and

CDCR represented that copies of several documents related to grievances filed by plaintiff are

appended to the original complaint filed in this action. After consideration of the arguments of

the parties, and good cause appearing, the parties will be directed to meet and confer for the

specific purpose of ascertaining the authenticity of the grievances and responses thereto that are

presently in the possession of plaintiff’s counsel. In addition, following said conference counsel

for CDCR shall determine whether there are any additional documents in the possession of

CDCR or any of its agents, including but not limited to appeals coordinators at California State

Prison-Sacramento, that relate to any grievance filed by plaintiff arising from the events that are

the subject of the claims raised in this action. If any further such documents exist, they shall be

produced to counsel for plaintiff before the time set for further discovery conference in this order. 

If no such documents exist, counsel for CDCR shall serve on plaintiff a proper discovery

response so attesting. 

By requests number 11 and 12, plaintiff sought “documents sufficient to

determine any policies and procedures related to inmates obtaining” medical care and specialist

care. CDCR produced a 19 page handbook called “Inmate-Patient Orientation Handbook to

Healthcare Services” dated January 2006, and nothing else. In the discovery conference

statement, plaintiff represents that at least one deponent has testified to the existence of policies

Case 2:02-cv-02036-GEB -JFM Document 94 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 4
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

and procedures responsive to the request that have not been produced. At the time of the hearing,

counsel for CDCR represented that his clients have informed him that no further documents

responsive to this request exist and that any documents referred to in deposition are in the

personal possession of the deponent.

The parties are hereby cautioned that preclusion orders may be issued limiting the

right of defendants to offer at trial any evidentiary material sought but not produced during

discovery. All parties, including defendants and third party CDCR, will be directed to meet and

confer with counsel for plaintiff concerning the existence or lack thereof of any further

documents responsive to this request. At the conclusion of that conference, counsel for CDCR

shall serve on plaintiff an appropriate further response to these two requests. The further

response shall be made under penalty of perjury by a person or persons in a position to know

whether such documents exist and whether a diligent search has been made. 

By request # 13, plaintiff seeks documents sufficient to learn the name of every

physician, nurse, radiologist or therapist who participated in his health care. By the time of the

discovery conference, this issue had narrowed to the identity of a physical therapist identified

only by the name “Holly.” Not later than January 4, 2007, CDCR shall take all steps necessary to

determine the identity of this individual, including but not limited to examination of CDCR’s pay

records and shall serve an appropriate supplemental response on counsel for plaintiffs. 

By request # 14, plaintiff seeks documents that show defendant Penner and

Peterson’s work schedules in 2001 and 2002. CDCR has not produced any documents. Dr.

Peterson has individually produced his work schedule. With the exception of their claim of

privilege, CDCR’s objections to this request are without merit and, as to the claim of privilege,

CDCR has not met its burden of demonstrating any privilege for these records. CDCR will be

directed to forthwith produce all documents responsive to this request. 

Finally, by requests #15 and 16, plaintiff sought documents evidencing inmate

grievances against defendants Penner and Peterson related to the provision of health care. CDCR

Case 2:02-cv-02036-GEB -JFM Document 94 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 4
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

objects on the ground, inter alia, that they do not keep records in a way that would allow them to

be searched by physician. No further response will be required.

In the discovery statements, the parties described other areas of possible dispute,

including service of additional interrogatories or the taking of a second deposition of plaintiff. 

The parties shall report to the court on the status of these matters at the further discovery

conference set in this order. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 13, 2006 motion to compel is granted in part and denied in

part in accordance with the provisions of this order.

2. This matter is set for further discovery conference at the time of the hearing on

plaintiff’s December 8, 2006 motion to compel, presently set for hearing on January 4, 2007.

3. The parties shall meet and confer in accordance with the requirements of this

order and serve all further responses as required by this order so as to be completed by the time of

the further discovery conference set herein.

DATED: December 15, 2006.

12

jett2036.o

Case 2:02-cv-02036-GEB -JFM Document 94 Filed 12/18/06 Page 4 of 4