Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06624/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06624-13/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

SY LEE CASTLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. K. SCRIBNER,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-06624-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER STRIKING DUPLICATIVE MOTION

TO STAY (Doc. 49)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY AS

MOOT (Doc. 50)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO COMPEL,

AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF AND

DEFENDANT TO COMPLY WITH THIS

ORDER AS SET FORTH HEREIN WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS (Docs. 54 and 58)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

SERVE THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES

(Doc. 57) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO MODIFY

SCHEDULING ORDER (Doc. 51)

New Discovery Deadline: January 31, 2007

New Motion Deadline: March 30, 2007

I. Order

A. Motions to Stay Scheduling Order

Plaintiff Sy Lee Castle (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended

complaint, filed October 21, 2005, against defendant Scribner (“defendant”) for acting with

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 70 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 10
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

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On

January 27, 2006, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order, which set the deadline for

completion of all discovery for September 29, 2006, the deadline to amend pleadings for October

30, 2006, and the deadline to file pretrial dispositive motions for November 30, 2006. (Doc. 18.)

On July 18, 2006, and August 2, 2006, plaintiff filed motions seeking to stay the scheduling order

in this case. (Docs. 49, 50.) 

The motions are duplicative, and one shall be stricken from the record for that reason.

Although duplicative with respect to the relief sought and virtually identical in all respects, the

August 2 motion contains several additional exhibits. Ordinarily when a party files duplicative

motions, the later filed motion is stricken. In this case, the earlier motion will be stricken so that the

motion supported by the additional exhibits can be considered by the court. 

In his motion, plaintiff seeks to stay the scheduling order because he is in the hospital and

without his legal material. On August 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed with the

scheduling order, and for an extension of the deadlines set forth in the scheduling order. (Doc. 51.)

That motion, which defendant opposes, will be addressed in subsection D. Because plaintiff is no

longer hospitalized and is again in possession of his legal material, plaintiff’s motion to stay the

scheduling order is moot and shall be denied on that ground.

B. Motions to Compel

On September 8, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his requests

for admission, set two, and on September 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel further

responses to his request for the production of documents, set one. (Docs. 54, 58.) Defendant filed

oppositions on September 29, 2006, and October 2, 2006. (Docs. 65, 66.)

1. RFA, Set Two

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

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

information or knowledge to admit or deny the fact, if he states he made a reasonable inquiry and

the information known or readily available is insufficient to permit an admission or denial. (Id.) If

defendant objects to one of plaintiff’s discovery requests, it is plaintiff’s burden on his motion to

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 70 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 10
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

compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. Plaintiff must inform the court which

discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform

the court why the information sought is relevant and why defendant’s objections are not justified.

RFAs 1 and 2: Defendant objected on the ground that he made a reasonable inquiry and is

without sufficient information to admit or deny the requests. (Doc. 55, MTC, Court Record pg. 17.)

This response is permissible under Rule 36(a) and plaintiff may not compel a different response.

RFA 3: Defendant objected, but notwithstanding the objection, denied the request. (Id.)

In his opposition to the motion to compel, defendant states that no such memo was located. (Opp.,

4:5-6.)

Although the court can ascertain what information plaintiff was attempting to seek via this

request, the request was not worded in a way to net plaintiff the information he seeks (e.g., whether

defendant denied Officer Dill’s memorandum requesting transportation for disabled inmates), as it

was confusing. Requests for admission are aimed at obtaining an admission or denial of specific,

discrete facts. Requests that are compound and/or confusing are not appropriate. Given the wording

of this request, the court finds that defendant’s denial was not improper. 

Plaintiff’s motion is partiallygranted in that defendant shall serve a response to the following

requests within thirty days, as reworded by the court: 

3(a): Admit that Officer Dill sent you a memorandum requesting that transportation

be provided for disabled inmates.

3(b): Admit that you denied Officer Dill’s memorandum.

Defendant states in his opposition that no such memo has been found. Plaintiff is informed

that if defendant responds to the above requests by stating that a reasonable inquiry was made and

he is without sufficient information to admit or deny the requests, plaintiff must accept those

responses, as they are proper under Rule 36(a).

RFA 4: Defendant admitted in part and denied in part this request. (Doc 55, pg. 18.)

Plaintiff has made no showing why defendant’s response was not proper. Plaintiff’s motion to

compel is denied. 

///

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 70 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 10
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

RFA 5: Defendant denied this request. (Id.) Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with an admission

or denial, without more, is not grounds to compel a different response. Plaintiff has made no

showing that defendant’s denial was not proper. Also, although defendant did not object on this

ground, the issue of exhaustion is generally a legal question. Plaintiff is cautioned that he may not

compel defendant to respond to a discovery request that requires a legal conclusion or legal analysis.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to this request is denied.

RFAs 6-9: These requests all seek information concerning events that occurred after this suit

was filed and which are not at issue in this action. (Id., pgs. 18-19.) Plaintiff’s claim arises from

having to walk to the Acute Care Hospital on May 21, 2003. Plaintiff’s (1) medical un-assignment

on October 4, 2004, (2) receipt of physical therapy from January 6, 2006, through March 2, 2006,

(3) receipt of prescription medication on March 23, 2006, and (4) receipt of a walker on March 23,

2006, do not appear to be relevant to the claim in this action, and plaintiff has made no showing

otherwise. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses is denied. 

2. POD, Set One

PODs 1-4: Plaintiff requested documentsrelated to events that occurred at Pelican Bay State

Prison in July of 1999. (Doc. 58, MTC, Court Record pg. 22-23.) The claim in this action arises

from an event that occurred on May 21, 2003, at California State Prison-Corcoran. Plaintiff has

made no showing that these documents are relevant to his claim in this action. Plaintiff’s motion

to compel is denied. 

PODs 5-8: Plaintiff requested medical records from (1) St. Joseph Hospital, July 8, 1999,

to July 21, 1999, (2) CSP-Corcoran from July 21, 1999, to September 30, 1999, (3) San Quentin

State Prison, September 1, 1999, to November 29, 1999, and (4) Pelican Bay State Prison, November

21, 1999, to January 13, 2000. (Id., pgs. 23-24.) Plaintiff has made no showing that these records

are relevant to his claim in this action. Further, plaintiff has made no showing that the documents

are not in his own medical file and available to him. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

PODs 9-11: Plaintiff requested (1) a CDC 1845 form from March 17, 2000, at Salinas

Valley State Prison, (2) a CDC 128 form from March 22, 2002, at Salinas Valley State Prison, and

(3) a Prosthetic Clinic ADL Orthotic and Prosthetic Service, Inc. report dated January 9, 2002, from

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 70 Filed 11/20/06 Page 4 of 10
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

Salinas Valley State Prison. (Id., pgs. 24-25.) Plaintiff has made no showing that these records are

relevant to his claim in this action. Further, plaintiff has made no showing that the documents are

not in his own medical file and available to him. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

PODs 12-15: Plaintiff requested prescription medication records from (1) Salinas Valley

State Prison, January 14, 2000, to April 21, 2003, and (2) from CSP-Corcoran, April 21, 2003, to

an unspecified date, and a breakdown of each medication and why it was prescribed. (Id., pgs. 25-

26.) Plaintiff has made no showing that the records at Salinas Valley State Prison are relevant to his

claim in this action. Further, plaintiff has made no showing that these medical records are not in his

own medical file and available to him. Finally, with respect to the breakdown of medications and

their uses, defendant objected that no such document exists. Plaintiff may not cause defendant to

create documents that do not exist. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

POD 16: Plaintiff requested a copy of his Inmate Priority Pass for May 21, 2003, at CSPCorcoran. (Id., pg. 26.) Defendant responded that inmates are issued original passes and copies are

not kept, so there is no document responsive to this request. Absent evidence to the contrary,

plaintiff must accept defendant’s response that no such document exists, and no such showing has

been made by plaintiff. 

However, in thisinstance a copy of this priority pass was submitted by defendant as Exhibit

A to his opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to his request for admission. (Doc.

65-2, Court Record pg. 9.) Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response is therefore moot and denied on

that ground. Defendant has thirty days from the date of service of this order to explain to the court

why he said there is no document responsive to this request, yet submitted a copy of the document

in question with his opposition to another motion. 

POD 17: Plaintiff seeks, apparently, copies of his own medical records from April 21, 2003,

to an unspecified date, presumably the present. (Doc. 58, pg. 26.) This request is overly broad and

burdensome in that plaintiff has made no showing that all of his medial records for a period of

approximately three and a half years are relevant to his claim in this action, and has made no

showing that the documents are not equally available to him. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.

///

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 70 Filed 11/20/06 Page 5 of 10
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

 POD 18: Plaintiff requested the CSP-Corcoran transportation list to the Acute Care Hospital

for May 21, 2003. (Id., pgs. 26-27.) Defendant’s objections that the request is overly broad,

burdensome, and seeks confidential information are not persuasive. Plaintiff is seeking a specific

document. It is most unclear to the court how the request is overly broad and burdensome, and

redaction of other inmates’ personal information from the document would cure any confidentiality

concerns. However, the relevance of this document is not apparent to the court and plaintiff has not

met his burden of demonstrating relevance. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to this request

is denied without prejudice to renewal. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of service of this order

to explain to the court why this document is relevant to his claim in this action (e.g., what is it going

to help him prove, what does he intend to use it for).

PODs 19-21: Plaintiff requested the housing roster for April 21, 2003, to July 30, 2003, and

policies concerning transportation of disabled inmates. (Id., pg. 27.) Notwithstanding his objections,

defendant responded that rosters are purged on a weekly basis, and there are no written policies

responsive to plaintiff’s requests. Absent evidence to the contrary, plaintiff must accept defendant’s

response that no such documents exist. No such showing has been made and plaintiff’s motion to

compel is denied. 

POD 22: Plaintiff requested the breakdown of the annual medical budget for CSP-Corcoran

showing how much is allocated for medical transportation. (Id., pg. 28.) Defendant objected that

the request seeks information that is not relevant. Plaintiff has made no showing that this

information is relevant to his claim in this action. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

PODs 23-25: Plaintiff requested a copy of inmate appeal log number 03-1912, the name(s)

of the appeals coordinator who logged the appeal, and a copy of reasonable accommodation request

log number 03-2668. (Id., pgs. 28-29.) Plaintiff has made no showing that these documents are not

available to him via a review of his central file and plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied for that

reason. 

The court notes that an incomplete copy of log number 03-1912 and an apparently complete

copy of log number 03-2668 are attached to defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel

a response to his requests for admission. (Doc. 65, Exhibit A.) Civility would dictate that if

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 70 Filed 11/20/06 Page 6 of 10
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

defendant’s counsel isin possession of documentsresponsive to plaintiff’s request, those documents

be produced. The court does not view with favor defendant’s objection to producing documents

which he himself thereafter submits to this court as exhibits. 

C. Motion for Leave to Serve Interrogatories

On September 11, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a third set of

interrogatories. (Doc. 57.) Defendant opposed the motion on September 29, 2006, identifying the

interrogatories at issue as the second set. (Doc. 64.) Plaintiff filed a reply on October 16, 2006.

(Doc. 67.)

In his opposition, defendant contends that because plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories

contained twenty-five interrogatories, the second set exceeds the limit set in Rule 33. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 33(a). Defendant also contends the interrogatories would be untimely under the scheduling order

and to the extent plaintiff’s motion can be construed as one seeking an extension, he has not shown

good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a), absent leave of court or written

stipulation, plaintiff may only serve twenty-five interrogatories - including subparts - on defendant.

The court did not previously grant plaintiff leave to serve additional interrogatories, and plaintiff has

not demonstrated why he should be relieved of the limit set in Rule 33(a). Accordingly, plaintiff’s

motion is denied. 

D. Motion for Extension of Scheduling Order Deadlines

Plaintiff seeks an extension of the discovery deadline to January 15, 2007, the amended

pleadings deadline be extended to February 16, 2007, and the motion deadline be extended to March

16, 2007. (Doc. 51.) Defendant opposed the motion on September 19, 2006. (Doc. 61.)

A scheduling order may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

Where there is no showing of diligence in complying with the deadlines, there is no good cause for

modifying the scheduling order. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-

88 (9th Cir. 2002).

In this instance, discovery was opened by order filed January 27, 2006, and the deadline was

set for September 29, 2006. Plaintiff contends, and defendant apparently does not dispute, that

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 70 Filed 11/20/06 Page 7 of 10
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

plaintiff was without his legal material from April 26, 2006, until August 14, 2006. (Doc. 51.)

Plaintiff was in the hospital during the majority of that time period and while in the hospital, did not

have access to the law library or to legal assistance. (Doc. 50; Doc. 51, Exhibit F.) Defendant

argues that plaintiff has not explained how he was prevented from proceeding with the case, and that

plaintiff did not need his legal property or law library access to propound discovery.

The court is nonplussed by defendant’s argument. The court does not imagine that

defendant’s counsel does legal work on this case without the benefit of any of the legal material in

front of her, and the court does not imagine that either counsel or defendant would be drafting

discovery from a hospital bed without any legal material. To suggest that plaintiff could have and

should have been propounding discovery while hospitalized and without his legal property is

untenable and the court finds defendant’s argument to be frivolous. 

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the discovery and motion deadlines is granted. The

discovery deadline is extended to January 31, 2007, which should provide plaintiff with enough time

to propound one final round of discovery in light of the court’s order on his motions to compel, and

will allow him to file a final motion to compel if need be. Plaintiff is relieved of his obligation to

meet and confer with counsel should a dispute arise with respect to the final round of discovery. The

motion deadline is extended to March 31, 2007. The court declines to extend the amended pleadings

deadline, as there is no good cause to do so. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend on

August 28, 2006, and that motion was resolved in a separate order.

If plaintiff seeks any further extensions of time for discovery in the future, he will be required

to set forth in his request specific facts concerning what he needs and why he needs more time.

E. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion seeking to stay the scheduling order in this case, filed July 18,

2006, is STRICKEN as duplicative;

2. Plaintiff’s motion seeking to stay the scheduling order in this case, filed August 2,

2006, is DENIED as moot;

///

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 70 Filed 11/20/06 Page 8 of 10
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

9

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his request for admissions, set two,

filed September 8, 2006, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, defendant shall serve

a response to RFAs 3(a) and 3(b) as reworded by the court in subsection B(1) of this

order;

5. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his request for the production of

documents, set one, filed September 12, 2006, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED

IN PART;

6. Within thirty (30) days from the date ofservice ofthis order, defendant shall explain

to the court why he stated there was no document responsive to POD 16 yet

submitted the responsive document as an exhibit to document 65;

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

explain to the court why the document sought in POD 18 is relevant;

8. Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to file a third set of interrogatories, filed September

11, 2006, is DENIED; and

9. Plaintiff’s motion seeking to modify the scheduling order, filed August 28, 2006, is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the discovery deadline is GRANTED

and the deadline is extended to January 31, 2007, applicable to both parties;

b. Plaintiff is relieved of the meet and confer requirement set forth in the court’s

discovery order;

c. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the amended pleadings deadline is

DENIED; and

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 70 Filed 11/20/06 Page 9 of 10
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

10

d. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the pretrial dispositive motion deadline

is GRANTED and the deadline is extended to March 30, 2007, applicable to

both parties. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 70 Filed 11/20/06 Page 10 of 10