Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02294/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02294-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

ALFREDO GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. TUVERA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02294-JST (RMI)

ORDER ON DISCOVERY LETTER 

BRIEF

Re: Dkt. No. 54

Before the court is the parties’ Joint Discovery Letter Brief (Doc. 54), which was referred to 

the undersigned for disposition. Within the Brief, Plaintiff requests the court issue an order 

compelling Defendants

1

to produce documents responsive to several of Plaintiff’s Requests for 

Production (“RFP”). Those RFPs fall into three categories, Plaintiff’s medical records, Defendants’ 

personnel records, and policies and procedures. On September 12, 2018, the court held a hearing on 

the matter at which Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants appeared by telephone. For the reasons that 

follow, the court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 

Plaintiff’s Medical Records

This dispute concerns Plaintiff’s RFP numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, & 15. These requests 

relate to Plaintiff’s own medical records. Defendants assert that Plaintiff was provided all of his 

medical records in their possession at the time of the request. Plaintiff disagrees and claims that: (1) 

he has not been provided his most recent records (those records generated after the disclosure); (2) 

he has not received physical copies of x-rays, videos, or other data from his neurosurgeons or other 

 

1 The RFPs were made to Defendant Tuvera specifically, but as Plaintiff stated at the hearing, the 

requests are directed at Defendants in concert.

Case 3:16-cv-02294-JST Document 58 Filed 09/12/18 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

specialists; and (3) that Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) may be withholding documents in bad 

faith. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s most recent records and the physical copies of x-rays, videos, or 

other data from Plaintiff’s neurosurgeons or other specialists, Defendant is correct that Plaintiff is in 

the best position to obtain those records. At the time of the initial disclosure Plaintiff was a prisoner 

of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and, thus, his ability to make records 

requests may have been somewhat limited. Despite objections that the requests were overbroad, 

Defendants provided Plaintiff with all of his medical records in their possession at that time.

Plaintiff is no longer in custody, which means that he has the unencumbered ability to make a 

demand for any and all of his medical records from any or all of his medical providers. Indeed, 

Plaintiff is in a better position than Defendants to request Plaintiff’s medical records. Plaintiff 

admitted at the hearing that he has not yet made a formal request for his medical records from 

SVSP. The court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that SVSP has withheld documents in 

bad faith and has failed to provide a basis for the court to compel Defendants (who are medical staff 

and appeals office employees) to provide Plaintiff with updated copies of his own medical records. 

Further, Defendants have asserted that they have provided all physical copies of x-rays, 

videos, or other data from Plaintiff’s neurosurgeons or other specialists in their possession. This 

means that to the extent there are other x-rays, videos, or other data from Plaintiff’s neurosurgeons 

or other specialists, those records are maintained by third parties and Plaintiff must request those

from the third parties himself. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests to compel RFP numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, &15 are 

DENIED.

Defendants’ Personnel Records

Plaintiff requests that the court compel responses to his RFP numbers 5, 6, &7, in which 

Plaintiff seeks “all DOCUMENTS that REFER TO or RELATE” to the job 

performance of eight different doctors at SVSP, five different appeals coordinators, 

and two different nurses. The requests are not limited in time or scope, and demand 

copies of all documents even related to “performance reviews, promotions, raises, 

awards, honors, transfers, disciplinary actions, employment history, internal 

investigations, demerits, critiques, formal or informal criticisms or complaints, 

suspensions and/or terminations, including any such that were initiated from within 

Case 3:16-cv-02294-JST Document 58 Filed 09/12/18 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the CDCR as well as any that may have been initiated from outside the CDCR.” 

Joint Letter Brief (Doc. 54) at 2 (quoting Requests for Production (Doc.55) at 8-10). Defendant 

objects that “Plaintiff’s requests are considerably overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, and seek 

information that is not relevant to any of his claims or defenses, and are not proportionate to the 

needs of his case.” Id. Further, Defendant asserts that “[t]he requests not only violate the 

Defendants’ privacy rights, but those of their patients, coworkers, and countless other third parties. 

And the requests seek documents protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 

Act, the official-information privilege, California Penal Code §§ 832.7 and 832.8, and by the 

attorney-client and work-product privileges.” Id. at 3.

At the hearing, Plaintiff agreed to limit his requests to the eight doctors at SVSP and RN 

Orfield and to documents related to staff complaints, active lawsuits, and to demerits following 

conduct determined to have been deliberate indifference. Defendants maintain their objections, 

especially as it relates to privacy concerns.

In light of Plaintiff’s explanations at the hearing as to relevance (specifically, his use of any 

of this potential information to counter Defendants’ motion for summary judgment) and his 

agreement to limit the scope of the requests, the court finds that the motion to compel the personnel 

records is due to be granted. However, because the records have the potential to put the privacy of 

medical records of non-parties at risk, the court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Defendants shall, on or before October 3, 2018, provide Plaintiff with documents 

responsive to any RFP numbers 5, 6, & 7, but limited to the eight doctors at SVSP and RN Orfield, 

and limited in scope as to documents related to staff complaints, active lawsuits, and to demerits 

following conduct determined to have been deliberate indifference, and limited in time as to 

documents covering the last 10 years;

(2) as to any documents responsive to these narrowed RFPs, or specific information within 

the documents that Defendants believe should be redacted or withheld due to privilege or privacy 

concerns, Defendants shall submit those documents on or before October 3, 2018, to chambers for 

in camera review;

(3) if Defendants find no documents responsive to the narrowed RFPs, then Defendants shall 

Case 3:16-cv-02294-JST Document 58 Filed 09/12/18 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

so certify on the record by filing a written declaration.

RFPs related to Policies and Procedures

“In Requests 10, 11, 12, and 13, Plaintiff seeks documents relating to CDCR’s policies and

procedures governing specific issues.” Id. As to requests 10-13, Defendant has stated that he does 

not have any relevant “policies or procedures” responsive to Plaintiff’s request. More specifically, 

as to RFP 10, Plaintiff requests policies and procedures relating to the “informed consent when 

referring to psychotropic medications.” Requests for Production (Doc.55) at 10. In response, 

Defendant first defines that he was a former member of the SVSP’s medical staff, not a member of 

the mental health staff and that states that “SVSP’s medical staff—which is separate and distinct 

from the mental health staff—does not prescribe medications to control behavior, and does not use 

‘Informed Consent Forms.’ Dr. Tuvera of the medical staff therefore does not have any relevant 

‘policies or procedures’ responsive to Plaintiff’s request.” Id. at 20. Defendant then states that 

“medical staff may prescribe psychotropic medications if those medications are approved to manage 

pain.” Defendant also points Plaintiff to Title 15 of the California code of Regulations, Sections 

3363 and 3364, which govern inmate’s “Right to Refuse Treatment” and “Involuntary Medication,” 

concerning any CDCR policies and to www.cchcs.ca.gov, which contains the rules that govern the 

prescription of pain medications. The court finds no basis to compel Defendant for any further 

response to this request.

As to RFPs 11 and 12, Plaintiff seeks policies and procedures concerning “pain management 

when relating to shingles” and policies and procedures relating to “the housing of inmates when 

[the] inmate has a feeding tube hanging out of [his] stomach, [is] fresh out of brain surgery, and 

[wearing] a protective helmet.” Id. at 10. Defendant responds that it has no policies and procedures 

related to these specific instances and that “that such instances are governed by general medical 

standards.” Disc. Letter (Doc. 54) at 3. The court finds no basis to compel Defendant for any further 

responses to these requests.

As to RFP 13, “Plaintiff seeks all documents relating to policies and procedures

governing the ‘processing, reviewing, addressing, and conflicts of interest’ concerning inmate

Case 3:16-cv-02294-JST Document 58 Filed 09/12/18 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

appeals and staff complaints.” Id. Defendant has directed Plaintiff “to Title 15 of the California 

Code of Regulations which govern[s] inmate appeals and staff complaints” and “objects that the 

request was far too overbroad, making compliance impossible.” Id. at 3-4. The court agrees with 

Defendant’s objections. Title 15 contains articles and sections dealing with grievances, and inmate 

appeals. Those sections are available to the general public and the court finds no basis to compel 

Defendant to provide any further response to this request.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to compel RFPs 10, 11, 12, and 13 are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2018.

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02294-JST Document 58 Filed 09/12/18 Page 5 of 5