Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02864/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02864-7/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARLOS HENDON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RIGG, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:10-cv-2864-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendant Rigg was deliberately indifferent to his medical 

needs. The parties have each filed a motion to compel discovery. As set forth below, each 

motion is granted and denied in part. 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 47) 

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to his requests for production, nos. 1-4, 

claiming that defendant’s objections are without merit. 

 In request no. 1, plaintiff sought defendant’s “personnel file.” Defendant objected on 

various grounds, including overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. Plaintiff contends the objections lack merit because his request may lead to 

admissible evidence as to any “cover up” related to his deliberate indifference claim. In her 

opposition, defendant states that her personnel file contains no information related to any 

Case 2:10-cv-02864-KJM-EFB Document 53 Filed 04/16/14 Page 1 of 6
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

investigation or “cover up” involving plaintiff. Because plaintiff has not shown that his request 

seeks information relevant to the prosecution of this action, his motion to compel a response to 

his request no. 1 is denied. See Ellis v. Cambra, No. CIV 02-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 109050, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008) (“Plaintiff must inform 

the court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed 

response, inform the court why the information sought is relevant and why Defendant’s 

objections are not justified.”); Rivera v. Nibco, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(“District courts need not condone the use of discovery to engage in ‘fishing expeditions.’”). 

 In request no. 2, plaintiff sought all documents related to defendant “referring inmates to 

medical specialist.” Defendant again objected on various grounds, including objections that the 

request is overbroad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, 

and as seeking private information pertaining to other inmates. Plaintiff’s motion only addresses 

defendant’s objection regarding the privacy of other inmates, suggesting that defendant produce 

responsive documents after first redacting any identifying information of other inmates. But 

plaintiff does not show how the requested documents would be relevant to the prosecution of this 

case, nor does he show that defendant’s overbroad objection is unjustified. As defendant notes in 

her opposition, the scope of this request is impermissibly broad, as it is not limited in time or 

place, or by who authored the requested documents. In responding, defendant should not have to 

guess as to what documents plaintiff is seeking. Plaintiff offers no clarification in this regard. 

Defendant’s objections to the request are sustained. Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to this request. 

 In request no. 3, plaintiff sought “All documents that support . . . that Nurse Rigg had 

previously exhibited deliberate indifference in carrying out her responsibilities as [a] nurse 

practitioner.” Defendant objected to the request as argumentative, not reasonably calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and for potentially seeking confidential or private 

records that may not be within her custody or control. The objection is overruled. The request is 

not argumentative. Further, there can be little doubt that documents showing that defendant 

previously exhibited deliberate indifference to serious medical needs may lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence pertaining to plaintiff’s own claim against defendant of deliberate 

Case 2:10-cv-02864-KJM-EFB Document 53 Filed 04/16/14 Page 2 of 6
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

indifference. If defendant has responsive documents within her possession, custody or control, 

she must produce them. To the extent such documents contain confidential or private 

information, defendant may properly redact them before producing them to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s 

motion is granted as to this request. 

 In request no. 4, plaintiff sought “All documents from my medical file for the period 

January 19, 2009 to October 30, 2013.” Defense counsel represents that plaintiff reviewed his 

medical records on February 5, 2014, and that he also received copies of his records. ECF No. 

50, ¶ 8. Plaintiff did not file a reply or otherwise dispute this representation. Plaintiff’s motion is 

therefore denied as moot with respect to this request. 

 Plaintiff also requests that defendant provide him with a copy of his deposition transcript 

so that he may effectively oppose her anticipated motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 51. 

Plaintiff’s request is premature. The court notes, however, that if defendant submits a courtesy 

copy of the deposition transcript to the court pursuant to Local Rule 133(j), defendant shall also 

serve a copy of it upon plaintiff. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 135(d) Service Upon All Parties 

(“copies of all documents submitted to the Court shall be served upon all parties to the action”). 

II. Defendant’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 46) 

 Defendant moves for an order compelling plaintiff to provide responses to her requests for 

production and requests for admissions, and for the imposition of monetary sanctions for the costs 

incurred in bringing her motion. ECF No. 46. 

 In her motion, filed January 22, 2014, defendant represents that plaintiff never responded 

to her requests for production of documents. Plaintiff maintains in his opposition that he served 

his responses on December 27, 2013. He also asserts that the discovery sought is “equally 

accessible” to defendant and that defendant “already obtained the documents herself.” ECF No. 

49 at 1. Plaintiff fails to substantiate his representation that defendant “obtained the documents 

herself” with any specific facts. In addition, the court notes that defendant’s request for 

production seeks documents that plaintiff contends support his allegations in this case. Plaintiff 

fails to demonstrate how the yet to be identified documents that he contends support his 

///// 

Case 2:10-cv-02864-KJM-EFB Document 53 Filed 04/16/14 Page 3 of 6
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

allegations would be equally accessible to defendant.1 Only plaintiff knows which documents he 

contends support his allegations. Assuming plaintiff served his responses on December 27 as he 

claims, it remains undisputed that defendant never received them. Therefore, defendant’s motion 

to compel plaintiff to provide responses to her requests for production, is granted. Unless 

plaintiff can demonstrate that he timely attempted service of these responses as he represents in 

his opposition, he must respond to and produce responsive documents to defendant, without 

objections. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 

1992) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required 

constitutes a waiver of any objection”). 

 Next, defendant argues that plaintiff’s responses to her requests for admissions nos. 2, 3, 

4, 5, 11, and 12 are insufficient. Defendant’s request for admission no. 2 asks plaintiff to admit 

that he submitted a Health Care Services Request form in which he requested healthcare services 

for “problems with ear” on February 9, 2009. Request for admission no. 3 asks plaintiff to admit 

that he refused to be examined by a Registered Nurse on February 11, 2009. Request for 

admission no. 4 asks plaintiff to admit that defendant submitted a Health Care Request for 

Services form, dated February 19, 2009, to have plaintiff scheduled for a hearing test by an 

audiologist. Request for admission no. 5 requests that plaintiff admit that an audiometry test was 

performed on plaintiff on April 20, 2009. Request for admission no. 11 asks plaintiff to admit 

that he submitted a Health Care Services Request form dated February 26, 2009, in which he 

requested health care services for “problems with ear, eyes hurt when reading.” Finally, request 

for admission no. 12 asks plaintiff to admit that he refused examination by a Registered Nurse on 

February 28, 2009. 

 In response to each of these requests, plaintiff responded: “I need this document to refresh 

my recollection, and on that basis deny it.” This is not a sufficient response. To the extent 

 1

 If one or more of the documents that plaintiff ultimately identifies consist of documents 

that the California Department of Corrections already possesses, then plaintiff may so specify in 

his response to the discovery request. But plaintiff must identify the documents he relies on and 

produce or make available for copying any such documents that the department does not already 

possess. 

Case 2:10-cv-02864-KJM-EFB Document 53 Filed 04/16/14 Page 4 of 6
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

plaintiff needs to review the documents referred to in the requests before answering, he must 

access those documents through his central file (or other appropriate channel) and provide good 

faith responses to defendant’s requests. Plaintiff, who initiated this lawsuit, must provide 

information concerning his allegations so that defendant can properly defend herself. 

Defendant’s motion is granted and plaintiff shall serve amended responses to defendant’s requests 

for admissions nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, and 12. Failure to do so will result in those requests being 

automatically deemed admitted by plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (“A matter is admitted 

unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the 

requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or 

its attorney.”). 

 Defendant’s request for the costs incurred in bringing her motion is denied. However, 

plaintiff is admonished that although he is proceeding pro se, he is required to comply with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. See 

McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (procedural requirements apply to all litigants, 

including prisoners lacking access to counsel); E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a) (“Any individual 

representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or 

Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law.”). Plaintiff’s failure to obey the 

court’s orders and the local and federal rules including rules regarding his responsibilities in 

responding to discovery and in prosecuting this action may justify dismissal, including dismissal 

with prejudice. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1992); Carey v. King, 856 

F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988)(affirming dismissal without prejudice for pro se prisoner’s 

failure to comply with local rule requiring he notify the court of any change of address). 

III. Order 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 47) is granted as to request no. 3 and denied in all 

other respects. Within 30 days from the date of this order, defendant shall serve plaintiff 

with an amended response to plaintiff’s request for production no. 3, as provided herein. 

///// 

Case 2:10-cv-02864-KJM-EFB Document 53 Filed 04/16/14 Page 5 of 6
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

2. Defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 46) is granted as to the requests for production 

and requests for admissions and denied in all other respects. Within 30 days from the date 

of this order, plaintiff shall serve defendant with his responses to her requests for 

production, and his amended responses to her requests for admissions nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 

and 12, as provided herein. 

3. In light of this order continuing discovery, the court must vacate the April 22, 2014 

deadline for filing dispositive motions. Any dispositive motions shall be filed no later 

than 60 days from the date of this order. 

DATED: April 15, 2014. 

Case 2:10-cv-02864-KJM-EFB Document 53 Filed 04/16/14 Page 6 of 6