Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06526/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06526-15/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

PETER BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. VALOFF,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-cv-06526-DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST FOR CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS

TO AUTHENTICATE DOCUMENTS VIA

DECLARATION RATHER THAN BY

APPEARANCE AT TRIAL

This matter is set for jury trial on August 7, 2007. The Pretrial Order provided, in

relevant part:

As discussed during the telephonic trial confirmation hearing, plaintiff shall

review defendant’s exhibits and the exhibits attached to his complaint. Any

exhibit that plaintiff intends to use at trial that is not an exhibit identified by

defendant and is not attached to plaintiff’s complaint must be produced to

defendant prior to trial. Plaintiff must also identify which specific documents

from his medical file he intends to use at trial. 

If there are any documents from plaintiff’s medical file which defendant does not

intend to use at trial, defendant is required to notify the Court whether he is

willing or unwilling to stipulate to their authenticity. If counsel is unwilling to

stipulate to the authenticity of the documents from plaintiff’s medical file that

plaintiff intends to use at trial, the custodian of records will be required to appear

trial. Defendant’s counsel is required to notify the Court whether he is willing to

stipulate to the authenticity of documents from plaintiff’s medical file or not by

July 24, 2007. There should be ample time by that date for plaintiff to have

identified which documents from his medical file he intends to use at trial and for

defendant’s counsel to compare them against the documents defendant intends to

use at trial.

(Doc. 94, 14:15-28.)

///

Case 1:01-cv-06526-DLB Document 110 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

On July 13, 2007, defendant notified the court that he would not stipulate to the

authenticity of documents from plaintiff’s medical file plaintiff intends to use at trial because he

was not in receipt of plaintiff’s exhibits. (Doc. 97.) On July 23, 2007, defendant notified the

court that he had received plaintiff’s exhibits and is willing to stipulate to the authenticity with

the exception of PX-107.10 and PX-107.11. (Doc. 107.) On July 24, 2007, plaintiff filed his

opposition to defendant’s request to authenticate records by declaration. (Doc. 108.)

At issue is defendant’s willingness to stipulate to the authenticity of documents from

plaintiff’s medical file that defendant does not intend to introduce at trial but which plaintiff does

intend to introduce. Only two of plaintiff’s exhibits are objectionable to defendant. PX-107.10

is a Color Plate Exam dated August 17, 2006, and PX-107.11 is a blank form entitled “Health

Care Services Request” (CDC form 7362). Defendant contends that the Color Plate Exam has

been altered in that an “(H)” appears near the bottom of the form, which is not apparent in the

same document from plaintiff’s medical file, and the blank form is not likely in plaintiff’s

medical file and is irrelevant.

In his opposition, which was filed in response to defendant’s initial notice of

unwillingness to stipulate to the authenticity of plaintiff’s medical records, plaintiff contends that

defendant failed to state whether he is willing or unwilling to stipulate to the authenticity of the

records plaintiff intends to use at trial, and that there are relevant medical records which should

be in his file but are not. Plaintiff contends that the custodian of records must appear at trial to

“(1) stipulate that such sick calls applications timely complaining about plaintiff’s eyes are

authentic or (2) explain to the jury whay [sic] happened to such sick call applications that should

be in plaintiff’s medical file.” (Doc. 108, pg. 2.)

Defendant also has the Color Plate Exam dated August 17, 2006, listed as an exhibit. 

Plaintiff will be provided with a copy on the morning of trial and may use the unaltered

document as an exhibit if need be. At issue is defendant’s willingness or unwillingness to

stipulate to the authenticity of medical records from plaintiff’s medical file and thereby avoid

having a custodian of records appear at trial. A blank form does not fall within that category of

documents.

Case 1:01-cv-06526-DLB Document 110 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff’s first opposition argument is moot, as defendant’s July 13 and July 23 filings

were both responsive to the court’s order concerning his willingness or unwillingness to stipulate

to plaintiff’s records. Plaintiff’s two arguments in favor of requiring the custodian of records to

appear at trial are both misplaced. Plaintiff is attempting to exceed to scope of that witness’s

testimony, which is to authenticate records. The custodian cannot authenticate records that are

missing and cannot authenticate missing records based on plaintiff’s mention of the records in

another document. Further, plaintiff may not demand the appearance of the custodian of records

at trial to explain to the jury why records are missing from his file. If plaintiff intended to inquire

into that issue, plaintiff needed to have listed his own witness competent to testify, and provided

the funds to subpoena that witness.

In conclusion, plaintiff has set forth no grounds to support commanding the custodian of

records to appear at trial. Defendant’s objection to plaintiff’s Color Plate Exam exhibit may be

overcome by use of defendant’s exhibit of this record, and defendant’s objection to the blank

form as not being a part of plaintiff’s medical records is sustained.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein and based on defendant’s willingness to

stipulate to the authenticity of plaintiff’s medical records except for PX-107.10 and PX-107.11, it

is HEREBY ORDERED that Marc Weeks, the custodian of records, may authenticate by

declaration and is not required to personally appear for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 26, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06526-DLB Document 110 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 3