Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02713/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02713-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

.-----------·----. 

FILED 

I MAR 2�10� 

CLERK US DIS IR1CT COURT 

SO ERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY DEPUTY 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 COLUMBUS ALLEN JR., 

12 Plaintiff, 

13 v. 

14 JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 

15 Defendants. 

16 

17 

Case No.: 16cv2713-MMA(KSC) 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT'S 

EXPERT WITNESS STUART C. 

MARSHALL, M.D. 

[Doc. No. 72.] 

18 Plaintiff Columbus Allen Jr., who is currently incarcerated at the California State 

19 Prison in Vacaville, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to Title 42, United States 

20 Code, Section 1983 [Doc. No. 1], and is proceeding in this action pro se and i nforma 

21 pauperis. [Doc. No. 3.] The only remaining defendant in the case is Christopher C. Lai, 

22 M.D. [Doc. Nos. 38, 48, 49.] A Motion for Summary Judgment by defendant Lai is 

23 currently pending before the District Court. [Doc. No. 68.] 

24 Before the Court are plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from 

25 Defendant's Expert Witness Stuart C. Marshall, M.D. [Doc. No. 72]; defendant Dr. Lai's 

26 Opposition to plaintiffs Motion [Doc. No. 73]; and defendant Dr. Lai's Supplemental 

27 Reply to plaintiffs Motion [Doc. No. 78]. For the reasons outlined more fully below, the 

28 Court finds that plaintiffs Motion to Compel must be DENIED as moot. 

l 6cv27 l 3-MMA(KSC) 

Case 3:16-cv-02713-MMA-KSC Document 79 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 Discussion 

2 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery states that on or about September 26, 2018 

3 defendant Dr. Lai served plaintiff with an expert report prepared by Stuart C. Marshall, 

4 M.D. Shortly thereafter, on October 10 or 11, 2018, plaintiff claims he served 

5 Dr. Marshall with document requests and requests for admissions. [Doc. No. 72, at p. 2.] 

6 By contrast, defendant asserts that plaintiff served counsel for defendant Dr. Lai with his 

7 document requests and requests for admissions, and that Dr. Marshall, a non-party, "has 

8 never been [properly] served with any of the written discovery at all, despite [the] fact 

9 that the discovery was specifically propounded to that witness and not to defendant 

10 Dr. Lai." [Doc. No. 73, at pp. 2, 5.] On November 9, 2018, in response to plaintiff's 

11 discovery requests, defendant Dr. Lai served plaintiff with objections. [Doc. No. 73, at p. 

12 2.] 

13 In addition to defendant Dr. Lai's claim that Dr. Marshall, as a non-party and an 

14 expert, was not properly served with plaintiff's discovery requests as required by the 

15 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant Dr. Lai' s Opposition raises several other 

16 procedural grounds for denying plaintiff's Motion to Compel. [Doc. No. 73, at pp. 3-5.] 

17 However, pro se litigants are typically afforded some leniency to compensate for their 

18 lack of legal training. "In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears pro se, the court 

19 must construe the pleadings liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt." 

20 Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted). This also 

21 applies to motions. Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). 

22 As a result, the Court requested that defendant Dr. Lai file a supplemental response or 

23 opposition addressing the substance of plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery from 

24 Dr. Marshall. [Doc. No. 75.] 

25 As the Court requested, defendant Dr. Lai filed a Supplemental Reply to plaintiff's 

26 Motion to Compel. [Doc. No. 78.] In this Supplemental Reply, defendant Dr. Lai 

27 reiterated his prior objections to plaintiff's discovery requests. [Doc. No. 78, at p. 2.] 

28 Despite these objections, defendant Dr. Lai attached verified responses by Dr. Marshall 

2 

l 6cv2.7 l 3-MMA(KSC) 

Case 3:16-cv-02713-MMA-KSC Document 79 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 to plaintiffs requests for admissions and document requests. Also attached to Dr. Lai's 

2 Supplemental Reply are copies of documents that plaintiff requested in his document 

3 requests. [Doc. Nos. 78-1, 78-2.] Defendant Dr. Lai represents that plaintiff has been 

4 "separately served" with these documents and Dr. Marshall's verified responses. [Doc. 

5 No. 78, at p. 2.] 

6 Dr. Marshall's substantive responses to plaintiffs discovery requests do include 

7 some objections that appear to be reasonable. [Doc. No. 78, at p. 2.] Otherwise, based 

8 on a brief review by the Court, Dr. Marshall's responses to plaintiffs discovery requests 

9 appear to be adequate under the circumstances. 

10 Conclusion 

11 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion to 

12 Compel is DENIED as moot. Dr. Marshall recently served plaintiff with responses to his 

13 discovery requests. In addition, Dr. Marshall recently served plaintiff with documents 

14 that are responsive to his document requests. [Doc. Nos. 78, 78-1, 78-2.] 

15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

16 Dated: March Z,J , 2019 

17 

18 Hon. Kar 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States Magistrate Judge 

3 

16cv2713-MMA(KSC) 

Case 3:16-cv-02713-MMA-KSC Document 79 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3