Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01412/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01412-7/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

14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Thomas John Heilman,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. Cook, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

DISCOVERY RESPONSES [Doc. 142]

For the reasons below, plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to provide 

supplemental responses to requests for production of documents (RFPs), interrogatories, 

and requests for admission (RFAs) is granted in part and denied in part.

LEGAL STANDARDS

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to 

any party’s claim or defense. . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “If the party requesting 

discovery is dissatisfied with any of the responses, the party may move to compel further 

responses by informing the court ‘which discovery requests are the subject of [the] motion 

to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the [c]ourt why the information sought 

is relevant and why [the opposing party’s] objections are not justified.’” United States v. 

Baisden, 881 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1205 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (citation omitted). “The party seeking 

to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 153 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS

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

requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).” O’Donnell v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 502, 503 

(S.D. Cal. 2008) (citation omitted).

Once this burden is met, “the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing 

that discovery should not be allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining and 

supporting its objections with competent evidence.” La. Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Inst’l

Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 485 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a), plaintiff Thomas Heilman moves to 

compel supplemental responses to RFPs 1, 4, 6, and 8.

1. RFP 1

In RFP 1, Heilman requested “a copy of your curriculum vitae.” [Doc. 142, at 3; 

Doc. 146, at 3.] Although defendant J. Cook produced her CV, Heilman complains that 

the document lacks items such as “medical courses completed, and also medical training 

required and completed under ‘CDCR’ [California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation] regulations for the position of doctor/physician/registered nurse. . .” 

[Doc. 142, at 3-4.] But, as defendant points out, RFP 1 does not demand such highly 

specific information; it merely requests a “curriculum vitae.” Defendant produced a 

standard CV—including her education, internal medicine internship, family practice 

residency, medical work history, research, and publications [Doc. 142, at 17-19]—so it 

seems there is nothing left to compel.

Yet Heilman suggests that these specific items must be included in a medical CV, 

relying on Kilgore v. Mandeville, No. 2:07-CV-2485-GEB-KJN P, 2010 WL 2557702 

(E.D. Cal. June 21, 2010). But that is not Kilgore’s holding. In Kilgore, the plaintiff 

specifically requested a CV listing “any subsequent training,” and the court ordered one 

produced that included “medical education, training and employment.” Id. at 7. Kilgore

never suggests that a CV’s “medical education” section must include every single medical 

course completed, nor that the “training” section must specifically include training under 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 153 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS

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

CDCR regulations (rather than, say, a generalized listing of medical internships, 

residencies, and fellowships).

Because Kilgore cannot convert plaintiff’s generic request for a CV into a specific 

request for these new items, his motion to compel as to RFP 1 is DENIED.

2. RFPs 4 and 6

Heilman also seeks copies of the specific CDCR medical policies covering 

evaluation of emergent medical conditions (RFP 4) and the Mental Health Crisis Bed unit’s 

logbook for May 9, 2013 (RFP 6). Defendant responds that her diligent search failed to 

locate any such documents and that she cannot produce what does not exist. For support, 

defendant points to counsel’s declaration, which states that counsel “sent Plaintiff Thomas 

John Heilman a letter” responding to the RFPs and that a “copy of the letter is attached.” 

[Doc. 146-1, at 2.] But nothing is attached.

Perhaps this omission was merely an oversight. But based on the record before the 

Court, defendant has merely raised a potentially valid objection that is not supported by 

any competent evidence. Thus, Heilman’s motion to compel as to RFPs 4 and 6 is 

GRANTED. If these items are in Cook’s possession, custody, or control, she must produce 

them. Also, if they are in the possession, custody, or control of the California Attorney 

General’s Office, which represents Cook, that Office must produce them. See Bovarie v. 

Schwarzenegger, No. 08cv1661 LAB (NLS), 2011 WL 719206, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 

2011) (“Documents in the possession of a party’s attorney [including the Attorney 

General’s Office] . . . may be considered to be within the control of the party for purposes 

of a Rule 34 production request.”) (citations omitted).

3. RFP 8

Finally, as to RFP 8, Heilman requested “all records or medical documents” Cook

reviewed, which led her to the diagnosis that his “collapsed left lung (pneumothorax) 

occurred ‘spontaneously.’” [Doc. 146, at 9-10.] Cook responded that she “reviewed 

medical records from Alvarado Hospital and CDCR in noting a spontaneous 

pneumothorax, which have already been produced. . .” [Id. at 5] This is an unfortunatelyCase 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 153 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS

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

worded response. A reader might assume it was the medical records that were “noting” 

the spontaneous pneumothorax, rather than Cook who first noted that diagnosis after

reviewing the records. In fact, Cook believes Heilman’s motion to compel is based on 

exactly that misinterpretation, and she clarifies that “she reviewed medical records, which 

were already in Plaintiff’s possession, that lead Defendant to note that Plaintiff had a 

spontaneous pneumothorax.” [Doc. 146, at 6.]

Cook’s interpretation of the motivation for Heilman’s motion may be right, but 

Heilman’s exact wording suggests he has received no medical records whatsoever that 

pre-date Cook’s diagnosis. He writes, “There are No medical records from Alvarado 

Hospital prior to Defendant Cook’s inclusion of this ‘spontaneously-occurring event’ 

theory [on a June 11, 2013 physician request form].” [Doc. 142, at 12.] Since it is the 

defendant’s burden to support her objections with competent evidence, and there is no 

declaration before the court of what the defense produced, the Court GRANTS Heilman’s 

motion to compel as to RFP 8. If these records are in the possession, custody, or control 

of Cook or the California Attorney General’s Office, they must be produced. If Cook has 

indeed produced these medical records already, she must simply produce them again.

B. Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories and RFAs

Heilman moves to compel responses to 11 interrogatory answers that he deems 

“false, inaccurate and evasive,” as well as 14 RFA answers that he claims amount to 

refusals to respond. [See Doc. 142, at 14.] This entire motion boils down to one dispute: 

Heilman believes that Cook medically examined him immediately after the May 9, 2013 

incident, and Cook responds that she did not. For example, in Interrogatory Request 

number 2, Heilman asks her to state “the exact extent of your physical examination of 

Heilman’s injuries . . . on May 9, 2013,” and Cook responds that she “did not examine 

Plaintiff on May 9, 2013.” [Doc. 142, at 39-40.] This response is not legally deficient, 

even if Heilman has contrary information from other witnesses or defendants. This Court 

cannot order Cook to provide answers or admissions on a medical examination she swears 

she never conducted. If her responses turn out to be false, as Heilman claims, then he can 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 153 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS

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

use them to impeach her at trial. At this stage, however, Heilman’s motion to compel 

supplemental responses to interrogatories and RFAs is DENIED. 

Dated: February 6, 2017

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 153 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5