Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02303/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02303-2/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

Plaintiff was released from Donovan in or about July 2007. 

04cv2303

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY WILLIS, JR., 

CDC #H-36974,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVE RITTER, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 04-CV-2303-WQH (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 

[Doc. No. 51]

This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Compel

Further Responses to Discovery filed by Plaintiff Leroy Willis,

Jr. [Doc. No. 51]. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s

motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. CASE BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a pro se, was formerly a prisoner at the Richard

J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD” or “Donovan”).1

Defendants include Steven Ritter, D.O., the Health Care

Manager/Chief Medical Officer at Donovan; Lori Raupe, Appeals

Coordinator at Donovan; and Nola Grannis, Chief of the Inmate

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 1 of 15
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

The Court is unable to determine exactly when Plaintiff served

his discovery requests, as the proof of service attached to the

discovery is defective in that it lists only the Court as a recipient,

not defense counsel.

3

Plaintiff’s discovery includes Request Nos. 1 through 13 and 15

through 20. Due to a numbering error, there is no Request No. 14.

2 04cv2303

Appeals Branch. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his

Eighth Amendment rights and his rights under the Americans With

Disabilities Act by failing to provide him with adequate medical

care. First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 5] at p. 4. Specifically,

Plaintiff, who allegedly suffers from dilated cardiomyopathy, a

heart condition, contends that Defendants failed to provide him

with a cardiac diet, delayed in an organ transplant, deprived him

of medical attention, and denied him the opportunity to obtain an

outside medical opinion. Id. at pp. 3-5. Plaintiff seeks

compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. 

Id. at p. 7.

Plaintiff served a set of written discovery requests upon

Defendant Ritter on or around January 25, 2007.2 The first page

of the discovery requests consists of a pre-printed “Request for

Admissions” form; the remainder of the pages consist of blank

pleading paper. Plaintiff set forth nineteen handwritten

discovery requests on these pages.3 Ritter responded to these

discovery requests on or about March 29, 2007. Ritter did not

provide any admissions, denials, or substantive responses but

rather set forth blanket objections to each of the requests. 

Plaintiff served another set of discovery requests, entitled

“Introduction Motion to Produce Discovery”, upon all three

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 2 of 15
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

The Court cannot ascertain, from the papers filed in connection

with this motion, when this additional set of discovery requests was

served upon Defendants.

5

The Court observes that the moving papers served on the Court

are slightly different than the moving papers served on Defendants. 

For example, on the Court’s copy of Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. No. 51],

the last sentence of text on the second page states, “Exhibit A-1

attached is copy of discovery.” Pl.’s Mot. at 2. This text is

missing from Defendants’ copy of the motion. See Tortorici Decl., Ex.

1. Exhibit A-1 to Plaintiff’s motion consists of a copy of

Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s “Introduction Motion to Produce

Discovery.” As Defendants’ opposition does not reference this

discovery, it appears to the Court that Defendants did not realize

that Plaintiff’s motion to compel encompasses this discovery. 

Nonetheless, in the interest of efficiency, the Court rules upon this

aspect of Plaintiff’s motion to compel herein.

The Court is obviously concerned about the discrepancy between

the papers filed with the Court and the papers served on Defendants,

as well as Defendant’s contention that papers delivered to Defendants

by Plaintiff are often “jumbled and out of order.” Defs.’ Mem. in

Opp’n at 2. The Court addresses these issues in the Conclusion

section of this Order.

3 04cv2303

defendants at some unknown time.4 Defendants, who construed the

discovery as a demand for the production of documents, responded

on or about March 29, 2007. Defendants asserted blanket

objections to all nine of the requests and again did not provide

any substantive responses. 

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to both sets

of discovery on the basis that Defendants’ responses were

frivolous, too general, evasive, without merit and/or made in bad

faith. Willis Decl. in Supp. of Mot. at 4-6.5 Defendants have

filed an opposition.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

“The Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts to

liberally construe the inartful pleading of pro se litigants.” 

Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation

and internal quotations omitted). The rule of liberal

construction is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” 

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 3 of 15
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 04cv2303

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). This

principle also applies to discovery propounded by pro se

litigants. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir.

1986) (courts should treat pro se litigants with “great leniency”

when evaluating compliance with the technical rules of civil

procedure). Courts have “a duty to ensure that pro se litigants

do not lose their right to a hearing on the merits of their claim

due to ignorance of technical procedural requirements.” 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1990). 

It is a common principle that the rules of discovery are to

be broadly and liberally construed so as to permit the discovery

of any information which is relevant and is reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(2); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947). Rule 26

has been broadly construed to “encompass any matter that bears

on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear

on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund,

Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (citing Hickman, 329

U.S. 495). See also Wright et al., Federal Practice and

Procedure § 2008 (noting that, even after the 2000 amendment to

Rule 26(b)(1), the standard for discovery “is still a very broad

one”). A district court has the authority to define the actual

scope of discovery to the reasonable needs of the action. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory Committee Notes, 2000 Amendment. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s “Requests for Admission”

A request for admission (“RFA”) is the procedure under which

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 4 of 15
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 04cv2303

one party can force another party to admit the truth of any

relevant fact or the genuineness of any relevant document. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 36(a); Schwarzer et al., California Practice Guide: 

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶ 11:1970 (The Rutter Group

2007). Here, it is clear that the discovery labeled by Plaintiff

as “requests for admission” are not true RFAs. As phrased, none

of the requests seeks an admission or denial; indeed, many of the

requests seek an answer or explanation far beyond the admission

or denial required in response to a RFA. Plaintiff’s discovery

is also problematic in that many of the requests are compound,

vague, ambiguous, argumentative, and seek information not

relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Notwithstanding these facts, the

Court believes that Defendant Ritter should have viewed the

discovery requests liberally and tried to respond to them to the

extent possible. Instead, Ritter elected to object to each of

the requests and provide no substantive responses whatsoever. 

Construing Plaintiff’s discovery requests liberally, and

interpreting the requests as interrogatories rather than RFAs,

the Court finds as follows:

1. Mr. Ritter 2004 did you deny 602109#RJD031274 in 2004

filed by Leroy Willis Jr. the plaintiff who has heart

disease.

Although this request is somewhat convoluted, it is clear to

the Court that it refers to the administrative complaint that

Plaintiff submitted on a California Department of Corrections

(“CDC”) Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form 602, while incarcerated,

regarding his alleged lack of medical care. Plaintiff’s

administrative complaint was labeled as Log No. RJD 03-1274, the

same number which appears in Request No. 1. See Compl., pp. 8-9. 

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 5 of 15
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 04cv2303

There is no reason that Defendant Ritter and/or his counsel

should not have been able to identify this document and answer

Plaintiff’s request, i.e., did Dr. Ritter deny Plaintiff’s

administrative complaint? 

Ritter shall therefore provide a substantive response to

this request.

2. Mr. Ritter are you aware of the seriousness of the

disease called Dilated Cardiomyopathy.

3. Mr. Ritter is Heart Disease America #1 killer.

These requests do not seek information relevant to

Plaintiff’s claims. The issues in this case concern Plaintiff’s

medical condition. It serves no purpose for Plaintiff to seek

medical information of a general nature from Ritter; rather, he

must demonstrate that he was denied adequate medical care for his

medical condition. Any response to these requests would not

provide any information whatsoever regarding Plaintiff’s

condition or whether he was provided with appropriate medical

care. 

Accordingly, no further response is required from Ritter to

these requests.

4. Mr. Ritter how often should Mr. Willis have the Echo

Exam performed in your opinion why did you Deny his

request for a clinic visit.

This request presents two requests for information, and is

therefore compound. Even so, the requests seek information

relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. The Court therefore directs

Ritter to provide substantive responses to each portion of this

request, which the Court construes as an interrogatory. 

//

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 6 of 15
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 04cv2303

5. Mr. Ritter are you aware of a law called Americans with

Disability Act. How about the U.S. Constitution.

This request does not seek relevant information. Ritter’s

familiarity or unfamiliarity with these laws, as generally

described here, has no bearing on Plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, no further response is required. 

6. Can you look at a person and determine the diagnosis of

the disease concerning heart disease. So Dr. Hunt

opinion is only a opinion.

This request is compound, vague, unintelligible, and

argumentative. Accordingly, no further response is required. 

7. Is it good medical advice to have two opinions [or]

“three” opinions.

This request does not seek relevant information, as phrased,

as it seeks information of a general nature rather than

information specific to Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, no

further response is required. 

8. Mr. Ritter what did you mean when you told me you would

not want to be in my shoes explain to the jury please

honestly.

The Court construes this request as an interrogatory and

orders Defendant Ritter to provide a substantive response.

9. Mr. Ritter emotional pain and stress can cause injury

to a person heart there’s is medical proof correct do

you agree [or] do you have your own findings of this

medical facts.

10. Mr. Ritter as a doctor with a degree can emotional pain

and stress kill?

As discussed above, it serves no purpose for Plaintiff to

seek medical information of a general nature from Ritter; rather,

he must prove that he was denied adequate medical care for his

medical condition. These requests therefore do not seek relevant

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 7 of 15
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 04cv2303

information. Accordingly, no further response is required.

11. Mr. Ritter are you aware you caused Mr. Willis

emotional pain and stress that last a life time it has

caused blood to back up in the heart vessel of Mr.

Willis the report dated 1-10-07 line #4 F.A. Zamudio,

M.D. Doppler signal reveal an E to A reversal. 

Emotional pain and stress can cause the heart

additional complications agree.

This request is compound, argumentative, vague, and

unintelligible, and the last portion of the request seeks

information of a general nature rather than information specific

to Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, no further response is

required.

12. Mr. Ritter Dr. Ritter as a chief medical officer and

doctor do you tell all Americans that you treat you

would not want to be in there shoes [or] is it just

“Mr. Willis”.

Defendant Ritter shall treat this request as an

interrogatory and shall provide a substantive response.

13. Dr. Ritter. The prison you worked for at the time of

this incident RJD provided special meals for different

disease was Mr. Willis provided a cardiac diet for his

heart disease. There is a documented medical need for

a cardiac diet from UCSD Medical San Diego. Did you

once ever try to make sure he was provided a medical

diet of cardiac meals while you treated Mr. Willis as a

doctor and chief medical officer you claimed the meals

are heart healthy in a report to the Medical Board of

California. I have the report is saturated fat heart

healthy How about sodium.

The Court construes this request as an interrogatory and

orders Defendant Ritter to provide a substantive response to the

following inquiry: Did you ever try to make sure Mr. Willis was

provided a medical diet of cardiac meals while you treated him? 

The remainder of the request is vague, compound, unintelligible,

and argumentative. Accordingly, no further response is required. 

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 8 of 15
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 04cv2303

15. Dr. Ritter was Mr. Willis at a stage where a heart

transplant should [have] been considered is money $$ a

issues with your employer. Did you ever have Mr.

Willis placed on a list for transplant while you

treated and held the title of Chief Medical Officer.

The Court construes this request as an interrogatory and

orders Defendant Ritter to provide substantive responses to the

following inquiries: (1) Was Mr. Willis at a stage where a heart

transplant should have been considered? (2) Did you ever have

Mr. Willis placed on a list for transplant? Ritter need not

provide any response to the “Is money an issue” inquiry as this

statement is argumentative and not relevant to Plaintiff’s

claims.

16. Dr. Ritter. Did you ever have Mr. Willis place on the

list for

1. Pacemaker

2. Defibilator

3. Valve replacement

4. Transplant.

The Court construes the first three requests as

interrogatories and orders Defendant Ritter to provide

substantive responses to each. Ritter need not provide a

response to the fourth request, concerning transplant, as this is

duplicative of Request No. 15.

17. Dr. Ritter are medical mistakes costly.

This request seeks information of too general a nature to be

relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, no further response

is required.

18. Dr. Ritter the blood that’s backing up in Mr. Willis

heart the echocardiogram report shows it clearly dated

1-10-07 are you the cause of the malfunction [due] to

emotional pain and stress you cannot rule out emotional

pain and stress caused by the lack of medical care and

effective medical care can we. And actions brought on

by you “can we.” Does the shoe fit Dr. Ritter.

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 9 of 15
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 04cv2303

This request is compound, argumentative, vague, and

unintelligible. Accordingly, no further response is required. 

19. Dr. Ritter did you read the report done by the U.S.

District Judge on your employer medical system it’s

published in the San Diego Union Tribune I have a copy

it’s evidence and (discovery). Concerning you and high

priced medical doctor’s who provide medical care your

labeled a disgrace did you know this. My complaint is

warranted and long overdue. Did you know your front

page news. Dr. Ritter can you honestly say the cause

of heart disease in America.

This request is compound, argumentative, and does not seek

information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. As stated above, the

issues in this case concern Plaintiff’s medical condition. In

order to prevail in this matter, Plaintiff must demonstrate that

he was denied adequate medical care for his medical condition. 

Information concerning the state of the California prison medical

system in general is not relevant to Plaintiff’s condition or

whether he was provided with appropriate medical care. 

Accordingly, no further response is required.

20. Dr. Ritter UCSD Medical San Diego performed a test in

2005 of the heart muscle of Mr. Willis. The report

differs from Alvarado Medical SD. Who’s telling the

truth.

The Court construes this request as an interrogatory and

orders Defendant Ritter to make his best efforts to explain the

alleged discrepancy between the UCSD and Alvarado reports if he

has knowledge of these reports. 

B. Plaintiff’s “Introduction Motion to Produce Discovery”

Plaintiff’s “Introduction Motion to Produce Discovery” was

properly construed by Defendants as a demand for the production

of documents. Again, however, Defendants asserted blanket

objections to all nine of the requests and did not provide any

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 10 of 15
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

11 04cv2303

substantive responses. The Court finds as follows:

1. Health care for inmates called a disgrace federal

receiver appointed by U.S. District Judge Thelton

Henderson (Report) San Diego Union News article dated

7-6-06 page A4. U.S. District Judge took over

California Department of Corrections health care

system. Note Robert Sillen wrote in his first report

the health care is disgrace.

This request does not seek information relevant to

Plaintiff’s claims. As discussed above, information concerning

the state of the California prison medical system in general is

not relevant to Plaintiff’s condition or whether he was provided

with appropriate medical care. Moreover, the news article

referenced in the request is equally available to all parties. 

Accordingly, no further response is required.

2. All video CD DVD, ECT recording of operation that

occurred on Mr. Willis conducted by CDC and Alvarado

Hospital. [¶] All doctors from Alvarado Hospital Dr.

Sun, Dr. Kevin Repeport, Dr. John Mazur, Dr. Steven

Ritter CDC all witnesses. (Defendant) Attorney for

record is requested to produce bodies of witnesses and

DVD CD, ECT recording of operation dated 7-11-02 and

all follow up visits there after by order of subpoena

to all parties. Under Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Federal Rules of Evidence 404 (b) 28 U.S.C.A.

The Court interprets this request as a request for copies of

Plaintiff’s medical records from the above-referenced doctors and

hospital, including any CDs or DVDs of Mr. Willis’s July 11, 2002

operation. The Court, in a previous order, has ruled that

Plaintiff is entitled to inspect any documents received by

Defendants from third parties and/or to obtain copies of such

documents upon payment of a reasonable copying charge. See July

16, 2007 Order Following Case Management Conference [Doc. No.

71]. That ruling also pertains to any electronically stored

information received by Defendants from third parties. See Fed.

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 11 of 15
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

12 04cv2303

R. Civ. P. 34(a). Therefore, to the extent that Defendants have

received any of Plaintiff’s medical records, including CDs or

DVDs, from the doctors and hospital set forth above, those

records shall be made available to Plaintiff for inspection

and/or copying as previously ordered. If Defendants do not have

any such records, they shall serve a response which affirmatively

states this fact. 

3. San Diego “Union” article dated Nov 16-06 doubt cast on

benefits of late angioplasties page A-1 A-14.

This request does not seek information relevant to

Plaintiff’s claims, and the news article referenced in the

request is equally available to all parties. Accordingly, no

further response is required.

4. CDC Lunches peanut butter potato chips-PIA milk what is

being served called heart healthy diet.

The Court interprets this request as a request for the

production of documents regarding “heart healthy diets” provided

to inmates by the CDC. Defendants shall produce any nonprivileged, responsive documents.

5. American Heart Association report on cardiomyopathy

dated 10-25-06 to Leroy Willis concerning his current

heart disease.

This request seeks information which is equally available to

all parties. Accordingly, no further response is required.

6. Pages 9 through 32 of complaint documents 1 United

States District Court Southern District WQH(JMA).

In this request, Plaintiff seeks a copy of his own Complaint

from Defendants. This information is equally available to all

parties. Accordingly, no further response is required.

//

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 12 of 15
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

13 04cv2303

7. State of California. California Code of regulations.

This request is vague and intelligible, and thus no further

response is required. 

8. Title 15. #8 CDC 602 109#RJD 03-1274. Merck Medical

report of heart functions and heart disease.

Defendants shall produce all documents in their possession,

custody and control pertaining to Plaintiff’s administrative

complaint labeled as RJD 03-1274. No further response is

required as to the request for the “Merck Medical report” as this

request does not seek information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.

9. Plaintiff “request” attorney for defendant turn over

all complaints filed on Steve Ritter Osteopathic

Medical Board of California and all CDC 602 filed on

Steve Ritter while employed at Donovan State Prison see

Brandon v. Beard [140 F.R.D. 328, 329 (M.D. PA., 1991)]

personal records and initial disclosures, Sacramento,

California Medical Board Complaint Unit PH #9162632424

SAC, California.

The Court finds that complaints filed against Ritter with

the Osteopathic Medical Board of California are not in the

possession, custody or control of Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 34(a). Moreover, Plaintiff has made no showing of how

complaints by others of alleged malpractice by Ritter, either to

the Medical Board or through a CDC 602 complaint, have any

bearing on his own claim, which must rest on the facts of his own

case. Thus, no further response is required by Defendants to

these aspects of Plaintiff’s request.

Plaintiff also appears to seek Ritter’s personnel records. 

In support, he cites to Brandon v. Beard, a case from the Middle

District of Pennsylvania. The court in that case directed prison

officials to produce limited information from the defendants’

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 13 of 15
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

14 04cv2303

personnel records, including “dates on which the defendants were

hired, the dates and reasons for termination and educational

training.” Brandon v. Beard, 140 F.R.D. 328, 329 (M.D. Pa.

1991). However, the court only did so after finding that such

information was relevant. Id. Here, Plaintiff has made no

showing that Ritter’s personnel records are relevant to the

claims in his case, and the Court does believe that the pendency

of this litigation permits Plaintiff access to Ritter’s complete

personnel file. The Brandon court expressly noted that the

plaintiff there did “not seek personal information that may

jeopardize the defendants’ safety” or “the entire files on the

defendants for his own perusal.” Id. Here, Plaintiff apparently

seeks Ritter’s entire personnel file. If Plaintiff seeks

information from Ritter’s personnel file, he shall describe with

specificity the information he seeks, and the reason such

information is relevant to his claims. The Court will not

require Defendants to produce any portion of Ritter’s personnel

file absent such a showing. See, e.g. Glass v. Diaz, 2007 WL

2022034 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2007) (denying prisoner’s motion to

compel on the basis that plaintiff “may not use discovery as a

fishing expedition entitling him to review prison officials’

personnel files in their entirety”).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to discovery is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant Ritter shall

provide further responses to Request Nos. 1, 4, 8, 12, 13, 15,

16, and 20 of Plaintiff’s “Requests for Admissions”, construed by

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 14 of 15
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

15 04cv2303

the Court as Interrogatories, as well as to Request Nos. 2, 4 and

8 of Plaintiff’s “Introduction Motion to Produce Discovery”,

construed by the Court as a Request for Production of Documents. 

No further responses are required in response to Request Nos. 2,

3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18 and 19 of Plaintiff’s “Requests for

Admissions” or Request Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of Plaintiff’s

“Introduction Motion to Preclude Discovery.” All further

responses and the production of any documents required by this

Order shall be served by Defendants within two (2) weeks of the

date of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future papers served on

Defendants by Plaintiff shall be neat and orderly. All proofs of

service must separately list, by title, each and every document

served on Defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiff shall serve

Defendants with identical copies of any filings made with the

Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 24, 2007

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 72 Filed 08/24/07 Page 15 of 15