Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02060/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02060-46/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 

AZHAR LAL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FELKER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:07-cv-2060-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

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

U.S.C. § 1983. He claims that defendant Flores retaliated against him in violation of the First 

Amendment and interfered with his medical treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment 

between June 2006 and October 2006. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel 

and Motion to Locate . . . Legal Property . . . and Motion to Allow Plaintiff to Correct his 

Deposition Due to Forgetfulness.” ECF No. 266. Defendant Flores filed an opposition, and 

plaintiff filed a reply. ECF Nos. 267, 268. As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion to compel is 

granted in part, his motion to locate property is denied, and his motion to correct his deposition 

transcript is granted. 

I. Motion to Compel 

Plaintiff moves to compel defendant Flores to provide further responses to his two 

requests for production of documents (RFPs) and to interrogatory numbers 1, 3, 6, and 7. 

///// 

Case 2:07-cv-02060-KJM-EFB Document 269 Filed 12/01/15 Page 1 of 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 

2 

RFP No. 1 sought “All CDCR-602’s and Citizen Complaints that were filed against 

[defendant].” Defendant appropriately objected to this request as overbroad because it pertains to 

any and all appeals and complaints asserted against him at any time, regardless of whether the 

conduct alleged is similar to the conduct alleged in this action. Nevertheless, defendant searched 

for appeals filed against him relating to conduct that occurred prior to 2007. Defendant located 

three appeals, only one of which alleged conduct similar to that asserted in this action.1 

Defendant provided plaintiff with a copy of that appeal and redacted the names of the other 

correctional staff involved. ECF No. 266, Ex. B. Plaintiff complains that the inmate’s name was 

also redacted and that the copy of the appeal is too light. Id. at 2. Review of plaintiff’s own 

exhibit, however, shows that the appeal includes the complaining inmate’s name and CDCR 

number. And while some written portions of the appeal are illegible, it can still be fairly 

understood as a whole. Id., Ex. B, Attach. 1. Plaintiff’s motion is denied in these respects. 

Without any showing of relevance, plaintiff also argues that defendant should produce the 

other two appeals. However, plaintiff has not shown that defendant’s objections are unjustified. 

Defendant adequately responded to RFP No. 1 by providing a copy of the only relevant appeal 

alleging conduct similar to that asserted in this action. 

Lastly, plaintiff’s request for citizen’s complaints, which are filed by non-inmates, is 

denied. There is no indication that defendant’s job responsibilities as a medical technical 

assistant involved treating non-inmates, and plaintiff fails to show that complaints filed by noninmates would be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For 

these reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to RFP No. 1 is denied. 

RFP No. 2 sought “All civil actions that [Flores] was named as a defendant.” Defendant 

objected to the request as overbroad and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence because it includes all types of civil actions, asserted at any point in time. Defendant 

also points out that lawsuits ordinarily are publically available and that plaintiff could obtain 

copies of any lawsuits filed against defendant by conducting research through PACER or the 

 1

 As reflected in Flores’s privilege log, the other two appeals alleged assault by a 

correctional officer. ECF No. 266, Ex. B. 

Case 2:07-cv-02060-KJM-EFB Document 269 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 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 

3 

Lassen County Superior Court website at the law library where he is housed. Plaintiff does not 

dispute that the information requested is already available to him, or otherwise sustain his burden 

of demonstrating that defendant’s objections are unjustified. Nor has he shown that prison 

authorities have denied him access to that information. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is denied 

without prejudice as to this request. 

Interrogatory No. 1 asked “What was the reason for you being discharged from High 

Desert State Prison?” Defendant objected to the request as not calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence and as seeking privileged and/or confidential information. Defendant also 

responded that “[f]or reasons unrelated to his employment with CDCR, [he] was unable to carry 

or use weapons and so was unable to be employed as a Correctional Officer for CDCR.” In his 

motion, plaintiff clarifies that he is not interested in why defendant was unable to be employed as 

a correctional officer, but rather, as to why defendant could no longer be employed as a medical 

technical assistant (MTA). See ECF No. 266 at 2 (“if [defendant] was not adequately trained as a 

MTA then he must state so and explain”). So clarified, defendant shall provide an amended 

response and defendant’s objections to the request are overruled. The circumstances regarding 

defendant’s separation from High Desert State Prison/CDCR as a medical technical assistant, 

which may or may not relate to his job performance, could “lead to evidence of a continuing 

course of conduct reflecting malicious intent,” or “reveal . . . patterns of behavior.” Soto v. City 

of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 615 (N.D. Cal. 1995). To the extent the interrogatory implicates any 

privacy interests, defendant can protect those interests through means such as redaction or a 

protective order. 

Interrogatory No. 2 asked, “After you were discharged by High Desert State Prison were 

you employed by another CDCR institution? If not, why?” Defendant responded that “after 

leaving HDSP, [he] did not work at any other CDCR institutions.” Defendant objected to the 

second part of the interrogatory as compound, and did not provide a response. Interrogatory No. 

3 essentially repeated the second part of interrogatory no. 2, asking “If your answer was no to the 

above interrogatory, then please explain why not?” Defendant again objected on relevance and 

privacy grounds, but responded that he “was unable to carry or use weapons and so was not able 

Case 2:07-cv-02060-KJM-EFB Document 269 Filed 12/01/15 Page 3 of 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 

4 

to work as a Correctional Officer for CDCR.” In light of plaintiff’s clarification that he is seeking 

information regarding defendant’s ability to be employed as a medical technical assistant and not 

as a correctional officer, defendant shall amend his response. Defendant’s objections are 

overruled for the same reasons as those to interrogatory no. 1. 

Interrogatory No. 6 stated, “Per the Policy and Procedures of CDC-7225 REFUSAL OF 

EXAMINATION AND/OR TREATMENT on 7/24/04 you completed a CDC-7225 on plaintiff 

(which CDC-7225 is attached at EXHIBIT-C).” Defendant objected to the request as vague and 

ambiguous as to the terms “Per the Policy and Procedures of CDC-7225.” Defendant also 

responded that a similar Refusal of Examination and/or Treatment form was used in 2006. After 

reading plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendant states that he now understands the interrogatory 

as encompassing two issues: “(1) whether the CDC-7225 form used on July 25, 2004, also was in 

use in 2006; and (2) whether the policy concerning the use of this form was in force in 2006.” 

ECF No. 267 at 8. Notwithstanding his clear understanding of plaintiff’s interrogatory, defendant 

objects to it as compound. The objection is overruled. Plaintiff propounded only nine 

interrogatories and is well within Rule 33’s 25-interrogatory limit. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a 

further response to interrogatory no. 6 is granted. 

Interrogatory No. 7 asked, “If the above Policy and Procedure concerning the completing 

of a CDC-7225 Form was in place/force in 2006, then why didn’t you complete such a Form in 

the times plaintiff states that you did not provide him with his diabetes diabetes [sic] treatment in 

the Complaint or Amended Complaint?” Defendant objected to the interrogatory as vague, 

argumentative, and assuming facts. He also responded that “he completed a CDC-7225 Form on 

those occasions when he was on duty and Plaintiff did not appear for blood glucose checks or 

insulin injections.” Plaintiff’s motion challenges the veracity of this response. Whether or not 

the response is truthful is a matter to be resolved at trial, not in a motion to compel. Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel a further response to interrogatory no. 7 is denied. 

II. Motion to Locate Legal Property 

Plaintiff alleges that some of his legal property was left behind when he transferred from 

CSP-Sacramento to Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP). Plaintiff is concerned that the property 

Case 2:07-cv-02060-KJM-EFB Document 269 Filed 12/01/15 Page 4 of 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 

5 

may contain documents responsive to defendant’s discovery requests. He asks that the court 

order CSP-Sacramento to forward his property to KVSP “so that [he] can comply with 

[defendant’s] request.” ECF No. 266 at 3. Defendant did not move to compel further discovery 

responses from plaintiff and the deadline for doing so has passed. See ECF No. 265. Thus, 

plaintiff’s stated need for his property is moot. His request is therefore denied. 

III. Motion to Correct Deposition 

Plaintiff seeks a court order allowing him to review his deposition transcript to make any 

corrections. Defendant submits a declaration from the Litigation Coordinator stating that 

arrangements were made for plaintiff to review the transcript, and that plaintiff refused. ECF No. 

267-1, Ex. B. Plaintiff responded with his own declaration, stating that he was only provided 

with five minutes to review and make corrections to the transcript. ECF No. 268. In light of 

these conflicting accounts, and in an abundance of caution, defendant is directed to provide 

plaintiff with a meaningful opportunity to review the deposition transcript. 

IV. Order 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part, his motion to locate property is denied, 

and his motion to correct his deposition transcript is granted (ECF No. 266). 

2. Defendant Flores shall provide further discovery responses as noted in this order on or 

before December 22, 2015. Any further motions to compel with regard to those 

responses must be filed on or before January 15, 2016. 

3. On or before December 22, 2015, defendant shall afford plaintiff a meaningful 

opportunity to review his deposition transcript and shall submit a declaration with the 

court regarding the same. 

Dated: December 1, 2015. 

 

Case 2:07-cv-02060-KJM-EFB Document 269 Filed 12/01/15 Page 5 of 5