Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00861/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00861-52/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC WHEELER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALISON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12cv00861 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO STRIKE DEFENDANT MUI’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Document 195)

Plaintiff Eric Wheeler (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on May 25, 2012.

Discovery closed on November 19, 2014. 

On December 4, 2015, Defendant Mui filed a motion for summary judgment. The 

motion is fully briefed and awaiting decision.

On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendant Mui’s opposition, or, 

in the alternative, to exclude the declarations of William P. Klein, M.D., and William W. Brien, 

M.D, as well as the attached exhibits from Mercy Hospital. Defendant Mui opposed the motion 

Case 1:12-cv-00861-DAD-GSA Document 229 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

on January 20, 2015, and Plaintiff filed his reply on January 9, 2015. The motion is suitable for 

decision pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant Mui’s motion for summary judgment, or, in the 

alternative, to exclude the declarations of Dr. Klein and Dr. Williams, as well as the documents 

from Mercy Hospital attached to their declarations. Defendant Mui subpoenaed the records from 

Mercy Hospital in May 2014. Plaintiff believes that Defendant Mui failed to disclose Dr. Klein 

and Dr. Williams as witnesses, failed to disclose their declarations in discovery, and refused to 

provide him with copies of the subpoenaed records.

Plaintiff’s understanding of the disclosure requirements is incorrect. He is correct that 

the Discovery and Scheduling Order required initial disclosures, and that Rule 26(e) requires 

parties to supplement their disclosures. However, the disclosure requirements related to expert 

testimony are different, and are triggered only when (1) the court orders the disclosure, (2) a trial 

date has been set, or (3) another party has submitted expert evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(A)-

(D). These events have not occurred in this case. 

Insofar as Plaintiff objects to the hospital records attached to the declarations, the 

objection is curious given that they are Plaintiff’s own hospital records. Plaintiff seems to object 

because Defendants refused to produce a copy, but that is not the case. Plaintiff was given an 

opportunity to request a copy of the records through Quest Discovery Services for a fee. If 

Plaintiff objects to the fee, there is no requirement that he be provided with free documents, and 

his indigent status does not provide otherwise. 

Moreover, Defendant’s refusal to produce the records in discovery was justified because, 

as Defendant Mui stated in his objection, the records are equally available to Plaintiff.

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-00861-DAD-GSA Document 229 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER

Based on the above, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00861-DAD-GSA Document 229 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 3