Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01754/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01754-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Le
Defendant
Harishkumar Patel
Defendant
Delton L. Taylor
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

DELTON L. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARISHKUMAR PATEL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01754-DAD-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO 

DISCOVERY REQUESTS

(ECF No. 31)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Delton L. Taylor, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 10, 2014. (ECF 

No. 1.) This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on February 23, 

2015, against Defendants Harishkumar Patel and Richard Le for medical indifference in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 9.)

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ May 12, 2016 motion to compel 

Case 1:14-cv-01754-DAD-JDP Document 35 Filed 08/03/16 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

responses to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories and requests for production of 

documents. (ECF No. 31.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. The matter is 

submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

I. Procedural History

The Court issued a scheduling order in this case on September 30, 2015. (ECF 

No. 23.) The order set a discovery deadline of May 30, 2016 and a dispositive motion 

deadline of August 8, 2016. At Defendants’ request, the Court issued an order modifying 

the scheduling order and extending the discovery deadline to September 1, 2016 and the 

dispositive motion deadline to November 8, 2016. (ECF No. 33.)

On October 1, 2015, Defendants propounded Requests for Production of 

Documents, Set One, to Plaintiff. Each Defendant also propounded Special 

Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff. (Marquez Dec. ¶ 2 (ECF No. 31-1)) Plaintiff 

provided responses to each Defendant’s special interrogatories and produced documents 

called for in Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, but to date has failed to 

provide the written response to each request for production required by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(B). 1 Id. at ¶ 4.

On or about December 10, 2015, Defendants each propounded Special 

Interrogatories, Set Two to Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 7. To date, Plaintiff has not responded. Id.

On January 19, 2016, and February 12, 2016, Defendants sent Plaintiff a meet and 

confer letter regarding his failure to provide written responses to Defendants’ production 

requests and Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 9. Plaintiff has failed to 

respond. Id. at ¶ 10.

 

1

Federal Rule of Civil procedure 34(b)(2)(B) requires responses to requests for the production of 

documents to “either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with 

specificity the grounds for objecting to the request.” Alternatively, “[t]he responding party may state that it 

will produce copies of documents or of electronically stored information instead of permitting inspection.” 

Defendants state Plaintiff has not complied with this subsection, but also state Plaintiff produced 

documents responsive to their request. It is unclear to the Court whether Defendants seek relevant 

discovery that has been denied them, or merely seek technical compliance with the rule despite having 

been provided with the requested documents. To the extent Defendants seek the latter, they are advised 

that the Court will not grant further motions to compel absent a showing that the deficient responses have 

resulted in the denial of discoverable evidence.

Case 1:14-cv-01754-DAD-JDP Document 35 Filed 08/03/16 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

Defendants filed the instant motion to compel on May 12, 2016. (ECF No. 31.) 

II. Legal Standard

The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith. Asea, 

Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir.1981). Parties may obtain 

discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the 

subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information need 

not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Id. The court must limit discovery if the burden of the 

proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). “In each 

instance, the determination whether . . . information is discoverable because it is relevant 

to the claims or defenses depends on the circumstances of the pending action.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26 Advisory Committee’s Note (2000 Amendment) (Gap Report) (Subdivision 

(b)(1)).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), “[a]n interrogatory may relate to 

any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).” Further, a party may serve on 

any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to “produce and permit the 

requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample” any documents, 

electronically stored information, or tangible things “in the responding party's possession, 

custody or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).

Pursuant to Rule 37(a), a party propounding discovery may seek an order 

compelling disclosure when an opposing party has failed to respond or has provided 

evasive or incomplete responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The failure to timely object 

to a discovery request may be deemed a waiver of the objection. Richmark Corp. v. 

Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992).

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving 

to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g., 

Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P., 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 

Case 1:14-cv-01754-DAD-JDP Document 35 Filed 08/03/16 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

13, 2012); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS (PC), 2008 WL 860523, at *4 

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the moving party to inform the Court which 

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

response, why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party's 

objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack v. Virga, No. 

CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P., 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011).

III. Discussion

Defendants seek responses to their requests for production of documents Nos. 2, 

3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, which seek:

(2) All documents that support your contention that defendant H. Patel, M.D. 

violated your civil or constitutional rights.

(3) All documents that support your contention that you suffered injury or harm as 

a result of the purported acts or omissions by defendant H. Patel, M.D.

(4) All medical records relating to your contention that defendant H. Patel, M.D. 

violated your civil or constitutional rights.

(6) All documents that support your contention that defendant R. Le, M.D. violated 

your civil or constitutional rights.

(7) All documents that support your contention that you suffered injury or harm as 

a result of the purported acts or omissions by defendant R. Le, M.D.

(8) All medical records relating to your contention that defendant R. Le, M.D. 

violated your civil or constitutional rights. (ECF No. 31 at 5.)

Defendants also seek responses to Defendant Patel’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, 

Nos. 11, 12, and 13, which ask:

(11) Please state each date that you contend that defendant Dr. Patel was 

deliberately indifferent to your medical needs.

(12) For each date identified in Special Interrogatory No. 11, state all facts as to 

how defendant Dr. Patel was deliberately indifferent to your medical needs.

(13) For each date identified in Special Interrogatory No. 11, identify the medical 

record that supports your contention that that defendant Dr. Patel was deliberately 

indifferent to your medical needs. (ECF No. 31 at 5-6.)

Case 1:14-cv-01754-DAD-JDP Document 35 Filed 08/03/16 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

Finally, Defendants seek responses to Defendant Le’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, 

Nos. 11, 12, and 13, which ask.

(11) Please state each date that you contend that defendant Dr. Le was 

deliberately indifferent to your medical needs.

(12) For each date identified in Special Interrogatory No. 11, state all facts as to 

how defendant Dr. Le was deliberately indifferent to your medical needs.

(13) For each date identified in Special Interrogatory No. 11, identify the medical 

record that supports your contention that that defendant Dr. Le was deliberately 

indifferent to your medical needs. (ECF No. 31 at 6.)

To date, Plaintiff has served neither responses nor objections to Defendants’

requests, nor has he responded to Defendants’ two efforts to meet and confer to try to 

resolve their discovery issues without Court intervention. 

Defendants argue their discovery requests were timely served, and Plaintiff should 

be made to respond as the requests seek non-privileged information relevant to their 

defenses against Plaintiff’s claims. 

The Court agrees. Defendants’ requests appear proper, and Plaintiff proffered no

objections stating otherwise. Defendants’ motion to compel will be granted. Within thirty

days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must serve Defendants with responses 

to the above-mentioned discovery requests. If Plaintiff objects to any requests, he must 

state why. Plaintiff is further advised that failure to respond to Defendants’ requests may 

result in sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.

Should Defendants find any of Plaintiff’s responses to be unsatisfactory, they may 

file another motion to compel with fourteen days of receipt of Plaintiff’s responses, 

outlining which responses were insufficient and why.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED in full; and

2. Plaintiff must serve Defendants with responses to their discovery requests 

within thirty (30) days of this Court’s order.

Case 1:14-cv-01754-DAD-JDP Document 35 Filed 08/03/16 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

3. Defendants must file any further motions to compel within fourteen (14) days of 

receipt of Plaintiff’s responses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01754-DAD-JDP Document 35 Filed 08/03/16 Page 6 of 6