Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02192/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02192-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Rodriguez
Defendant
Grant Rogero
Defendant
H. Singh
Defendant
Earl D. Smith
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EARL D. SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. RODRIGUEZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-2192 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against three defendants on the following claims: Dr. Grant 

Rogero,1 for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment; correctional officer R. Rodriquez, for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious 

medical needs and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and correctional officer H. 

Singh for failure to protect plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This order addresses 

the parties’ discovery disputes.2

//// 

 

1

 Defendant Rogero is represented by private counsel. 

2

 Due to the court’s internal staffing constraints and caseload burdens, the discovery matters in 

this action were not promptly addressed prior to expiration of the discovery and motion deadlines. 

Nevertheless, the court here authorizes all additional appropriate discovery and will accord an 

opportunity for supplemental briefing of pending motions if later deemed necessary. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 32
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

I. Plaintiff Allegations 

Plaintiff alleges that on November 8, 2012, plaintiff experienced excruciating abdominal 

pain and was rushed from Mule Creek State Prison to an outside hospital where a “c-scan x-ray” 

was taken. ECF No. 1 at 7. After the x-ray was taken, defendant correctional officers Singh and 

Rodriguez took plaintiff to a holding cell near defendant Rogero’s office. From the holding cell, 

plaintiff overheard defendant Dr. Rogero tell Singh and Rodriguez that plaintiff had a lacerated 

spleen, a bleeding right kidney, and genital warts and should be scheduled for surgery 

immediately. Id. at 8. Rodriguez told Dr. Rogero that plaintiff was a snitch who had a civil 

lawsuit pending against several correctional officers, and asked Dr. Rogero to schedule plaintiff’s 

surgery in April so that plaintiff would not be able to go to trial. Id. at 9. Dr. Rogero later 

proposed another surgery date and Rodriguez again called plaintiff a snitch and made reference to 

plaintiff’s pending lawsuit. Plaintiff remained in the hospital for three days and was returned to 

prison without obtaining adequate medical care or a scheduled surgery date.3

II. Legal Standards Common to All Discovery 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 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 itself be admissible at trial provided the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Id. 

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. See e.g., Grabek 

v. Dickinson, 2012 WL 113799, *1, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4449 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Womack v. 

Virga, 2011 WL 6703958, *3, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1 (E.D. Cal. 2011). 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 

 

3

 A more detailed summary of plaintiff’s allegations is set forth in this court’s order filed 

December 23, 2014. See ECF No. 36 at 2-4. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 32
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

responding party’s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799 at *1; Womack, 

2011 WL 6703958 at *3. 

The court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery, Hunt v. County of Orange, 

672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Survivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 

635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) and, where the 

discovery request seeks information which, based on the record, is clearly within the scope of 

discovery and the objection lacks merit, the court may elect to exercise its discretion to reach the 

merits of the dispute. See e.g., Marti v. Baires, 2012 WL 2029720, *3, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

77962 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Williams v. Adams, 2009 WL 1220311, *1, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

37515 (E.D. Cal. 2009). The court must limit discovery if the burden of producing it 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 re. Subdivision (b)(1). 

III. Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests Served on Defendant Rogero 

With respect to defendant Rogero, the following three motions are presently before the 

court: (1) plaintiff’s motion to compel Rogero to provide further responses to plaintiff’s Request 

for Production of Documents, Set One, ECF No. 43; (2) plaintiff’s motion to compel Rogero to 

respond to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, ECF No. 35; and (3) plaintiff’s 

motion to compel Rogero to provide further responses to Interrogatories, Set One, ECF No. 37. 

A. Request for Production, Set One (ECF No. 43) 

On October 23, 2014, plaintiff served Request for Production of Documents, Set One on 

defendant Rogero, seeking production of eight photographs of the interior of San Joaquin General 

Hospital, where the alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights took place. On December 4, 2014, 

Rogero served timely legal objections to Set One and stated in response to each production 

request that he “has no responsive documents.” See ECF No. 39-3, Exh. C. 

On December 10, 2014 (applying the mailbox rule), plaintiff filed a motion to compel 

Rogero to provide further responses to plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 3 of 32
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

ECF No. 34. On January 13, 2015, Rogero opposed the motion on the grounds that, as a contract 

radiologist who is not an employee of San Joaquin General Hospital, he does not have possession, 

custody, or control of any of the photographs requested by plaintiff. ECF No. 39. Rogero also 

implied that he had no means to obtain such photographs. Id. 

By order dated January 26, 2015, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel further 

responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One. ECF No. 42. The court’s review of 

plaintiff’s requests indicated that, rather than asking for existing photographs to be produced, 

plaintiff appeared to be asking for photographs to be taken and then provided to him. The court 

denied plaintiff’s motion, finding Rogero’s responses to be reasonable and legally sufficient. 

ECF No. 42 at 4. 

On January 14, 2015, plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel, ECF No. 43, again 

seeking further responses from defendant Rogero to Request for Production of Documents, Set 

One.4

 Here, plaintiff takes issue with Rogero’s statement that Rogero does not have possession, 

custody, or control of the requested photos.5 Specifically, plaintiff appears to argue that Rogero 

subpoenaed the requested photos (along with other documents) from San Joaquin General 

Hospital, but has failed to turn them over to plaintiff. ECF No. 43 at 2-3. 

 In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant Rogero argues that the court already denied 

plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One. 

Rogero contends that plaintiff’s current motion presents no new facts or arguments, and fails to 

refute the court’s conclusion that Rogero’s responses to Set One were reasonable and legally 

sufficient. ECF No. 52. 

 Defendant Rogero’s argument is well taken. Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling 

 

4

 Plaintiff’s motion appears to be a response to ECF No. 39, Rogero’s opposition to plaintiff’s 

initial motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, ECF 

No. 34. In the instant motion, plaintiff does not set forth the individual production requests, but 

instead states that he is objecting to defendant Rogero’s responses “for the second time.” See 

ECF No. 43 at 2. 

5

 Plaintiff also argues that his production requests were not vague or ambiguous. ECF No. 43 at 

2. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 4 of 32
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

further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One has already been denied. 

ECF No. 42. Plaintiff’s only new argument is that Rogero now has possession of the requested 

photos because he obtained them by subpoena. See ECF No. 43. If defendant Rogero has 

obtained possession, custody, or control of the requested photos, he is required to supplement his 

responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). However, at present there 

is no reason to believe the photos exist, much less that defendant Rogero has obtained possession 

of them. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Production of Documents, Set One is 

denied. 

In his motion to compel, plaintiff also requests a court order compelling defendant Rogero 

to produce the records Rogero obtained by subpoena from San Joaquin General Hospital, Mule 

Creek State Prison, and Kern Valley State Prison. ECF No. 43 at 3. However, this request was 

not included in the Request for Production of Documents, Set One served on defendant Rogero,6

 

see ECF No. 39-3 at 1-4, and it is unclear whether plaintiff served a RFP on defendant Rogero 

requesting production of all the documents defendant received by subpoena.7 Because plaintiff 

has not established that he served a discovery request for these documents on defendant Rogero 

prior to filing the instant motion to compel, the undersigned must deny plaintiff’s motion to 

compel with respect to his general request for all the documents defendant Rogero received by 

subpoena from San Joaquin General Hospital, Kern Valley State Prison, and Mule Creek State 

Prison.8

B. Request for Production, Set Two (ECF No. 35) 

On November 2, 2014, plaintiff served Request for Production of Documents, Set Two on 

 

6

 In the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, plaintiff requested only photographs 

from defendant Rogero. See ECF No. 39-3 at 1-4. 

7

 Defendant Rogero does not address this request in his opposition to plaintiff’s motion to 

compel. See ECF No. 52. 

8

 The court notes that some of the documents defendant Rogero received by subpoena from San 

Joaquin General Hospital and Kern Valley State Prison are attached as Exhibits C and D to 

Rogero’s motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 69-7 at 12-25. However, the court will 

not deny plaintiff’s motion on mootness grounds as it is unclear whether these exhibits contain all 

the documents defendant Rogero received. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 5 of 32
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

defendant Rogero, seeking production of a list of medications given to plaintiff at San Joaquin 

General Hospital on November 8, 2014, a copy of plaintiff’s “x-ray c-scan,” a voice recording of 

the doctor’s diagnosis of plaintiff’s injuries, security footage of plaintiff shackled to his hospital 

bed, and a copy of hospital procedures regarding inmate wards. On December 4, 2014, Rogero 

served legal objections and stated that he had no responsive documents.

On December 14, 2014 (applying the mailbox rule), plaintiff filed the present motion to 

compel further responses to Request for Production, Set Two. ECF No. 35. On December 23, 

2014, the court vacated ECF No. 35 as duplicative of plaintiff’s December 10, 2014 motion to 

compel, ECF No. 34. However, upon further review, the court later determined that Rogero’s 

response to ECF No. 35 was required, and ordered Rogero to respond within fourteen days of the 

court’s January 26, 2015 order. ECF No. 42. 

On February 5, 2015, Rogero filed an opposition plaintiff’s motion to compel further 

responses to Request for Production, Set Two. ECF No. 45. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s 

motion should be denied because Rogero does not have possession, custody, or control of the 

requested documents and because plaintiff did not attempt to confer in good faith before filing his 

motion compel.9 ECF No. 45 at 1-2. 

i. Failure to Meet and Confer 

Defendant argues that plaintiff’s motion to compel should be denied because plaintiff did 

not file a certification that he attempted to confer in good faith with defendant Rogero before 

filing his motion to compel, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(1)(B). ECF No. 

45 at 2, 4-5. Rule 37(d)(1)(B) provides that “[a] motion for sanctions for failing to answer or 

respond must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to 

confer with the party failing to act in an effort to obtain the response without court action.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(B). Because the court finds that plaintiff’s motion does not include a request 

 

9

 Defendant’s also includes a number of boilerplate objections to each production request, none 

of which are supported by argument or explanation. See ECF No. 45. However, defendant 

provides responses to plaintiff’s requests notwithstanding his objections. In each response, 

defendant asserts that he has no responsive documents. See id. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 6 of 32
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 

7

for sanctions against defendant Rogero,10 Rule 37(d)(1)(B) is not applicable to the instant motion. 

To the extent defendant means to assert that plaintiff’s failure to file a certification violates Rule 

37(a), the court declines to enforce the rule against plaintiff here because of his pro se status. 

Plaintiff’s failure to file the certification will not provide grounds for denying the motion. 

ii. Lack of Possession, Custody, or Control 

Pursuant to Rule 34(a), documents sought in discovery motions must be within the 

“possession, custody, or control” of the party upon whom the request is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

(34)(a). “A party need not have actual possession of the documents to be deemed in control of 

them . . . A party that has a legal right to obtain certain documents is deemed to have control over 

the documents.” Branch v. Umphenour, No. 1:08-CV-01655-AWI, 2014 WL 3891813, at *8 

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

RFP No. 1, Set Two: Complete copy of med log’s of medication 

given to Plaintiff while he was admitted to San Joaquin General 

Hospital. 

Response: Objection. This request for production is objected to as 

vague and ambiguous, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these 

objections, responding party has no responsive documents. 

Plaintiff seeks to compel production of a list or log of the medications he received during 

his stay at San Joaquin General Hospital. ECF No. 35 at 2. In light of plaintiff’s allegation that 

on November 8, 2012, defendant Rogero initially determined that plaintiff required surgery but 

changed his mind for non-medical reasons, plaintiff’s medication list is relevant and reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to plaintiff’s physical condition 

on that date. 

In his opposition, defendant emphasizes that he is not an employee of San Joaquin 

General Hospital and that he does not have possession, custody, or control of the requested 

documents. ECF No. 45 at 3. However, the court’s review of the record indicates that defendant 

subpoenaed plaintiff’s medical records from San Joaquin General Hospital on December 2, 2012. 

 

10 Plaintiff brought his motion to compel pursuant to Rule 37(a). See ECF No. 35 at 1. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 7 of 32
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 

8

See ECF No. 69-7 (Defendant Rogero’s Motion for Summary Judgment) at 15-19. It is unclear 

whether defendant received the requested documents from San Joaquin General Hospital prior to 

filing his opposition to plaintiff’s motion, or if defendant later provided the requested documents 

to plaintiff. Accordingly, defendant shall be required to file a statement with the court indicating 

whether the documents he obtained by subpoena from San Joaquin General Hospital, Mule Creek 

State Prison, or Kern Valley State Prison included any records related to medications plaintiff 

received while plaintiff was a patient at San Joaquin General Hospital in November 2012. If 

defendant received any records related to plaintiff’s medications, he shall produce them to 

plaintiff. 

RFP No. 2, Set Two: Plaintiff is request actual xray c-scan by 

Linda Hodges on November 8, 2012 to be logged in the courts as 

evidence of Plaintiff. 

Response: Objection. This request for production is objected to as 

an improper request for production of documents, vague and 

ambiguous, overbroad, violates doctor-patient confidentiality, and 

is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding party has 

no responsive documents. 

While defendant objects to plaintiff’s request as vague and ambiguous, the court finds 

plaintiff’s request to be reasonably interpreted as asking for a copy of the x-rays from plaintiff’s 

November 8, 2012 CT scan, as opposed to the report interpreting the scan. The x-rays are 

relevant to plaintiff’s physical condition as of November 8, 2012, and their relevance is made 

more clear by defendant’s argument on summary judgment that plaintiff did not require surgery 

and did not have a serious medical need. See ECF No. 69 at 1. However, to the extent plaintiff 

seeks to require defendant to file a copy of the x-rays with the court on plaintiff’s behalf, the 

request is improper and will be denied. 

Because of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will also consider whether defendant should 

be required to produce the x-rays to plaintiff himself. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1261 (9th Cir.1992) (the inartful pleadings of pro se litigants are to be liberally construed); 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1988) (pro se litigants should not 

lose their right to a hearing on the merits of their claim “due to ignorance of technical procedural 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 8 of 32
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 

9

requirements”). Defendant asserts that he has no documents responsive to plaintiff’s request. 

However, because it is unclear whether defendant later received the x-rays by way of subpoena,11

defendant will be required to file a declaration with the court indicating whether plaintiff’s 

November 8, 2012 x-rays were included in the documents defendant received from San Joaquin 

General Hospital, Mule Creek State Prison, or Kern Valley State Prison. If defendant received 

the x-rays, he shall be required to produce them to plaintiff. 

RFP No. 3, Set Two: One copy of recorded voice: # 

537974090/Job # 913115 of doctor of Plaintiff diagnosis on 11-8-

12 time 16:36:00 and 11-9-12 time 7:40:00 to be sent directly to 

Plaintiff. 

Response: Objection. This request for production is objected to as 

vague and ambiguous, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these 

objections, responding party has no responsive documents. 

 The court finds that plaintiff’s request for “recorded voice: # 537974090/Job # 913115” is 

neither vague nor ambiguous, given that defendant was able to determine that plaintiff’s seeks the 

dictation recording corresponding to Dr. Tarig A. Samarkandy’s preliminary report, attached to 

plaintiff’s complaint as Exhibit A, ECF No. 1 at 27-28.12 Plaintiff contends the dictation 

recording is relevant to establishing his diagnosis before and after his November 8, 2012 CT scan 

at San Joaquin General Hospital. ECF No. 35 at 3. Presumably, plaintiff believes that the 

dictation is a more reliable indicator of his diagnosis because unlike a written report, the dictation 

 

11 In defendant Rogero’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 69, defendant attaches an 

exhibit including “the relevant records” defendant obtained by subpoena from San Joaquin 

General Hospital. See ECF No 69-6 at 1, 69-7 Ex. C at 12-19. The x-rays are not included in the 

attachment. However, the court’s review of the record indicates that in opposition to plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment, defendant filed another exhibit including “the relevant records” 

defendant obtained from San Joaquin General Hospital. See ECF No. 66-2 at 1, 66-4 Ex. B. 

Because each exhibit includes some documents not included in the other exhibit, see id., the court 

cannot assume that either exhibit includes all the records defendant obtained by subpoena from 

San Joaquin General Hospital. 

12 The last page of Dr. Tarig A. Samarkandy’s preliminary report bears the following identifiers: 

Voice #537974090/Job #913115 

D: 11/8/08/12 16:36:00 

T: 11/09/2012 07:40:00 

TAS: medq 

ECF No. 1 at 28. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 9 of 32
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 

10

recording cannot be altered. The recording is therefore relevant to plaintiff’s claim that defendant 

Rogero declined to schedule plaintiff for surgery despite Rogero’s initial finding that surgery 

would be required. 

 Defendant contends he has no responsive documents and is unable to obtain the recording, 

if it exists, because he is not an employee of San Joaquin General Hospital. ECF No. 45 at 4. 

While plaintiff argues the dictation recording is relevant, he does not argue that defendant has 

possession, custody, or control of the recording. In light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will 

require defendant to file a statement with the court indicating whether he received the dictation 

recording by subpoena from San Joaquin General Hospital. If defendant received the recording, 

he shall produce it to plaintiff. If defendant did not receive the recording, no further production 

will be required. 

RFP No. 4, Set Two: One complete copy of security video foot-use 

of Plaintiff shackled to hospital for two plus days at hospital. 

Response: Objection. This request for production is objected to as 

vague and ambiguous, assumes facts not in evidence, narrative, and 

is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding party has 

no responsive documents. 

 Plaintiff claims that every inmate admitted to San Joaquin General Hospital for an 

overnight stay is “monitored over security video.” ECF No. 35 at 4. Video footage of plaintiff’s 

hospital stay could provide evidence of plaintiff’s contact with defendants while at San Joaquin 

General Hospital, which is relevant in light of Rogero’s assertion that he never conversed with 

plaintiff and defendant Singh’s assertion that he was not at San Joaquin General Hospital on the 

day of plaintiff’s CT scan. To the extent this footage exists, it is discoverable. 

Defendant contends he does not have the security footage and argues that he is not an 

employee of San Joaquin General Hospital. ECF No. 45 at 4. Plaintiff asserts that defendant is 

acting in bad faith by concealing the video footage, but does not otherwise argue that defendant 

has possession, custody, or control of the video. See ECF No. 35 at 4. Here, the court notes that 

defendant’s subpoena to San Joaquin General Hospital included a request for any “video tapes” or 

recordings of plaintiff. See ECF No. 69-7 Ex. C at 18. Accordingly, defendant shall file a 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 10 of 32
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 

11

statement with the court indicating whether he received the video footage from San Joaquin 

General Hospital. If defendant received the footage, he shall produce it to plaintiff. If he did not 

receive the footage, no further production shall be required as plaintiff makes no argument that 

defendant has possession, custody, or control of the video. 

RFP No. 5, Set Two: Copy’s of any memorandums documents 

governing rules of security of hospital in regards to the inmate ward 

part of hospital where inmates are admitted. 

Response: Objection. This request for production is objected to as 

vague and ambiguous, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these 

objections, responding party has no responsive documents. 

The court finds plaintiff’s request is not vague or ambiguous, and the request is reasonably 

interpreted as asking for documents relating to San Joaquin General Hospital’s security policies 

regarding the area of the hospital where inmate patients are located. 

 Defendant again argues that he does not have the requested documents and implies that he 

is unable to obtain the documents because he is not an employee of San Joaquin General Hospital. 

See ECF No. 45 at 4. Here, defendant’s point is well taken, as it is not clear that Rogero would 

be able to obtain San Joaquin General Hospital’s security policies by requesting them from San 

Joaquin General Hospital or Mule Creek State Prison. Unlike defendants Rodriguez and Singh, 

who are represented by the Attorney General’s Office and could likely obtain the documents from 

CDCR13 by requesting them,14 defendant Rogero is neither a CDCR employee nor an employee 

of San Joaquin General Hospital. As defendant Rogero explains in his opposition, Rogero is 

contracted by San Joaquin General Hospital to provide radiological services only. ECF No. 45 at 

2. In light of defendant Rogero’s apparent inability to obtain copies of the security polices and 

plaintiff’s complete failure to argue that defendant has possession, custody, or control of the 

documents, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion as to RFP No. 5. 

 

13 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

14 See Branch v. Umphenour, No. 1:08-CV-01655-AWI, 2014 WL 3891813, at *8 (E.D. Cal. 

Aug. 7, 2014) (individual defendants who are employed by CDCR can generally obtain 

documents from CDCR by requesting them). 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 11 of 32
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 

12

C. Interrogatories, Set One (ECF No. 37) 

On October 22, 2014, plaintiff served defendant Rogero with Interrogatories, Set One. 

Rogero timely served an initial response on plaintiff on November 24, 2014, comprised of only 

legal objections. ECF No. 38-2, Exh. B. On the same date, and prior to receiving defendant’s 

objections, plaintiff filed a motion to compel, ECF No. 30, asserting that he had not yet received 

defendant’s answers. This motion was later denied as premature. See ECF No. 42 (January 26, 

2015 Order). 

On December 23, 2014, defendant served amended answers to plaintiff’s Interrogatories, 

Set One, which included substantive statements notwithstanding defendant’s objections. See ECF 

No. 38-1, Exh. A. On December 29, 2014, plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel, ECF No. 

37, challenging the content of Rogero’s amended responses. Defendant Rogero opposed the 

motion. ECF No. 41.

 In his motion, plaintiff seeks to compel defendant Rogero to provide further responses to 

interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 23. ECF No. 37 at 1. Defendant 

opposes the motion on the grounds that plaintiff’s request is moot with respect to interrogatories 

1-4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 23 because Rogero already provided plaintiff with substantive 

responses to these requests. ECF No. 41 at 2. With respect to interrogatories 14, 20, and 21, 

defendant maintains his objections and asserts that plaintiff’s requests exceed the scope of 

discovery.15 Id. 

Interrogatory No. 1 to Rogero, Set One: How long have you 

work at San Joaquin General Hospital as a Doctor.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is objected to as vague 

and ambiguous, and calling for a legal conclusion. Without 

waiving these objections, I have had privileges to work at San 

Joaquin General Hospital since the late 1990. I have never 

contracted with the California Department of Corrections. 

 

15 Defendant also asserts that plaintiff’s motion to compel should be denied because plaintiff did 

not attempt to confer in good faith before filing his motion and did not file any accompanying 

certification as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(1)(B). ECF No. 41 at 2. For 

the reasons discussed above, the court will not use plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer as 

grounds for denying the motion.

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 12 of 32
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 

13

Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to the requested information because it is non-privileged 

and relevant to the discovery of admissible evidence, but does not explain why defendant’s 

response is deficient. The court finds that defendant Rogero has sufficiently responded to this 

interrogatory. Plaintiff inquired as to how long Rogero has worked at San Joaquin General 

Hospital, and Rogero explained that he has had privileges to work there since 1990. Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel is denied as to Interrogatory No. 1. 

Interrogatory No. 2 to Rogero, Set One: While working at San 

Joaquin General Hospital and contracting out for the state have you 

ever had a civil lawsuit filed or pending against you.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is objected to as vague 

and ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, and is not reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 

waiving these objections, I have not been involved in any other 

lawsuit involving the California Department of Corrections. 

 Plaintiff argues that whether Rogero had prior lawsuits filed against him is relevant to 

Rogero’s character and to establishing prior bad acts by defendant, but again fails to explain how 

defendant’s response is deficient. ECF No. 37 at 2. Plaintiff’s reference to “contracting out for 

the state” suggests that he is asking whether Rogero has ever had a civil lawsuit filed against him 

involving the CDCR, and Rogero stated that he has not. Defendant Rogero has answered 

plaintiff’s interrogatory and will not be required to provide a supplemental response. 

Interrogatory No. 3 to Rogero, Set One: Whate is your secretary 

full complete name.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is objected to as vague 

and ambiguous, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these 

objections, I do not have a secretary. 

 With respect to the secretary, plaintiff states that “this person is very important in the facts 

in case she was present during incident.” ECF No. 37 at 2. Rogero stated that he does not have a 

secretary. Rogero has answered plaintiff’s interrogatory and will not be required to provide 

further responses to this question. 

Interrogatory No. 4 to Rogero, Set One: How long has your 

secretary worked for you inside your office.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is objected to as vague 

and ambiguous, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 13 of 32
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 

14

discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these 

objections, I do not have a secretary. 

 Here, plaintiff specifically inquired about Rogero’s secretary and Rogero again responded 

by stating that he does not have a secretary. Rogero has answered plaintiff’s interrogatory and 

will not be required to provide further responses to this question. 

Interrogatory No. 6 to Rogero, Set One: As a doctor did it appear 

that plaintiff was in excruciating.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is objected to as 

incomplete, vague and ambiguous, and is not reasonably calculated 

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving 

these objections, I did not meet, converse with, or examine the 

plaintiff. I was not involved with the plaintiff’s care beyond 

receiving and interpreting the CT scans. 

 In his motion, plaintiff asserts that Interrogatory No. 6 stated: “As a doctor did it appear 

that plaintiff was in excruciating pain.” ECF No. 37 at 3 (emphasis added). Plaintiff argues that 

defendant Rogero’s opinion of plaintiff’s condition when plaintiff was first admitted to the 

hospital is relevant to the discovery of evidence regarding what medications were given to 

plaintiff. See ECF No. 37 at 3. Presumably, the medications given to plaintiff are relevant to 

establishing plaintiff’s physical condition and whether plaintiff had a serious medical need on 

November 8, 2012. 

However, defendant’s opposition indicates that “pain” was omitted from the actual 

interrogatory submitted to defendant. See ECF No. 38-1 at 3.16 This omission is presumably the 

basis for defendant’s objection that the interrogatory is incomplete as well as vague and 

ambiguous. Given that the complaint repeatedly alleges that plaintiff was in “excruciating pain,” 

see ECF No. 1 at 7, 10, the court questions whether defendant was truly unable to discern the 

meaning of plaintiff’s interrogatory. However, defendant has attempted to respond to the 

interrogatory despite his objections. Defendant’s response that he never met or examined 

plaintiff suggests that defendant did not have sufficient contact with plaintiff to form an opinion 

 

16 A copy of defendant Rogero’s responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories is attached as an exhibit 

to ECF No. 38, defendant’s initial opposition to plaintiff’s motions to compel, ECF Nos. 30 and 

37. Defendant later filed another opposition, ECF No. 41, responsive to ECF No. 37 only. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 14 of 32
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 

15

as to whether plaintiff was in excruciating pain. Accordingly, requiring a further response to this 

interrogatory would be futile. Defendant Rogero will not be required to provide a further 

response to Interrogatory No. 6. 

Interrogatory No. 8 to Rogero, Set One: While plaintiff was at 

San Joaquin General Hospital whate type of pain meds did you give 

him for his pain.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is objected to as vague 

and ambiguous, assumes facts not in evidence, and is not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Without waiving these objections, I did not order any 

pain medication for the plaintiff. 

 Plaintiff appears to argue that the type of pain medication he received at San Joaquin 

General Hospital is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating 

to plaintiff’s diagnosis after the CT scan was taken, see ECF No. 37 at 3, which is relevant to 

whether plaintiff had a serious medical need. Here, defendant Rogero responded that he did not 

give plaintiff any pain medication. Because plaintiff and defendant dispute whether defendant 

gave plaintiff any pain medication at all, requiring a further response to this interrogatory would 

be futile. Accordingly, defendant Rogero will not be required to provide a further response to 

Interrogatory No. 8. 

Interrogatory No. 9 to Rogero, Set One: Do every patient get 

entroduce to the surgeon after recieving a c-scan for stomach.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is objected to as vague 

and ambiguous, overbroad in scope, lacking in foundation, and is 

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Without waiving these objections, no. It is not routine to 

introduce a patient to a surgeon after receiving an abdominal CT 

scan. 

 Here, plaintiff’s interrogatory can reasonably be read to ask whether it is routine for 

patients to be introduced to the surgeon after they have a CT scan,17 to which defendant answered 

in the negative. Defendant Rogero has sufficiently responded to plaintiff’s interrogatory and will 

not be required to provide a further response. 

 

17 Although it is not entirely clear, plaintiff appears to assert that the identity of the surgeon is 

relevant to the security video footage plaintiff requested from defendant Rogero, which would 

depict plaintiff shackled to the bed while being introduced to the surgeon. See ECF No. 37 at 4. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 15 of 32
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 

16

Interrogatory No. 13 to Rogero, Set One: When plaintiff stated to 

you he was hungry and asked you could he have something to eat 

didn’t you in fact state to him he could-not because he may need 

surgery.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is objected to as vague 

and ambiguous, lacking in foundation, calling for a narrative, 

assumes facts not in evidence, and is not reasonably calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving 

these objections, I did not meet or converse with the plaintiff. I was 

not told the plaintiff was hungry and I did not make that response. 

 This interrogatory essentially asks whether defendant Rogero told plaintiff he might need 

surgery. Defendant maintains that he never spoke with plaintiff. In light of the disagreement as 

to whether this conversation took place, the issue of whether defendant made this statement is a 

factual dispute to be resolved at trial. Defendant Rogero will not be required to provide a further 

response to Interrogatory No. 13. 

Interrogatory No. 14 to Rogero, Set One: Why did you change 

your mind about giving Plaintiff.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is objected to as 

incomplete, vague and ambiguous, assumes facts not in evidence, 

lacking in foundation, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. 

 In his motion to compel, plaintiff’s represents that Interrogatory No. 14 read: “Why did 

you change your mind about giving plaintiff surgery.” ECF No. 37 at 4 (emphasis added). In his 

opposition, defendant explains that the word “surgery” was not included in the version of 

Interrogatory No. 14 posed to defendant and that defendant objected to the interrogatory as 

incomplete because he was unable to interpret plaintiff’s request. ECF No. 41 at 4. Defendant 

contends that he should not be required to answer this interrogatory since plaintiff’s modification 

of the interrogatory through a motion to compel is improper. Id. 

Here, the court agrees that plaintiff’s interrogatory is vague and that defendant may not 

have been able to interpret plaintiff’s request. While the court might under other circumstance 

require defendant to supplement his response in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will not 

require it here. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Rogero revolves around 

his allegation that Rogero initially determined that plaintiff required surgery, but did not schedule 

plaintiff for surgery because of defendant Rodriguez’s interference. Defendant Rogero has filed a 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 16 of 32
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 

17

motion for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff did not have a serious medical need 

on November 8, 2012 and did not require surgery. See ECF No. 69-2 at 1. Whether defendant 

Rogero initially determined plaintiff required surgery is a question of fact that will be 

determinative of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Rogero. Requiring a 

further and predictable response to this request would be futile, and plaintiff’s motion to compel 

will be denied as to Interrogatory No. 14. 

Interrogatory No. 16 to Rogero, Set One: Whate is the surgeon 

full name who you who you entroduce Plaintiff to.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is objected to as vague 

and ambiguous, assumes facts not in evidence, and is not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Without waiving these objections, I did not introduce the 

plaintiff to any surgeon. 

 Plaintiff asserts that defendant Rogero introduced plaintiff to a surgeon and that the 

identity of the surgeon is relevant because the surgeon could provide information regarding the 

inadequate medical care plaintiff received at San Joaquin General Hospital.18 See ECF No. 37 at 

5. In light of defendant Rogero’s response that he did not introduce plaintiff to any surgeon, 

requiring a further response here would be futile. Plaintiff’s motion to compel will be denied as 

to Interrogatory No. 16.

Interrogatory No. 17 to Rogero, Set One: When plaintiff stated 

he previous had stomach problems of bleach being put in his food 

whate type of treatment did you give him for that problem.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is objected to as vague 

and ambiguous, lacking in foundation, assumes facts not in 

evidence, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, I did not 

meet or converse with the plaintiff. I did not provide plaintiff with 

any treatment. 

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he spoke with defendant Rogero, that he told 

defendant about his stomach problems resulting from bleach being put in his food, and that 

 

18 Plaintiff appears to assert that the surgeon could be “a reliable witness” who could testify as to 

the inadequate medical care plaintiff received at the hands of defendant Rogero. See ECF No. 37 

at 5. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 17 of 32
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 

18

Rogero examined plaintiff and advised him that a nurse would be in to ask plaintiff questions and 

take blood and urine samples. See ECF No. 1 at 13. Defendant Rogero maintains that he did not 

meet with plaintiff or provide him with treatment. Defendant has answered plaintiff’s 

interrogatory and will not be required to provide a further response. 

Interrogatory No. 20 to Rogero, Set One: Whate type of medical 

problems does a person have in your opinion as a doctor if they 

have a lasirated spleen.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is objected to as vague 

and ambiguous, overbroad in scope, calling for speculation, calling 

for expert testimony, is an incomplete hypothetical, and is not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on November 8, 2012, defendant Rogero determined that 

plaintiff had a lacerated spleen, a bleeding right kidney, and a genital wart. In his motion to 

compel, plaintiff asserts that the medical problems associated with a lacerated spleen are 

“relevant to his diagnosis.” See ECF No. 37 at 5. The information appears relevant to 

establishing that plaintiff had a lacerated spleen on November 8, 2012, which supports his 

deliberate indifference claim against defendant Rogero. 

Defendant argues that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because “there is no 

limitation on what might be considered a ‘medical problem,’” and is overbroad because “it covers 

situations in which a patient is suffering from other problems beyond the symptoms of a lacerated 

spleen.” ECF No. 41 at 5. Defendant further asserts that the interrogatory calls for speculation 

because “there are numerous potential problems that could arise because of, concurrent to, or 

prior to a lacerated spleen” and because “the interrogatory lacks specificity or particularity in 

regards to ‘person.’” Id. According to defendant, the requested opinion is not sufficiently 

particularized to plaintiff’s case to provide any relevant information. Id. 

An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b), and 

an interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that 

relates to fact or the application of law to fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). However, an 

interrogatory calling for an opinion must be phrased with particularity. Baker v. Perez, No. 2:09-

CV-2757 MCE KJN, 2011 WL 4842427, at *3, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117758 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 18 of 32
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 

19

12, 2011) (citations omitted). Here, the court agrees that plaintiff’s request for an opinion is not 

sufficiently particularized. The interrogatory is phrased as a request for general medical 

information and is not tailored to plaintiff’s symptoms or plaintiff’s treatment. Cf. Atcherley v. 

Clark, No. 1:12 CV 00225 LJO DLB, 2014 WL 5880152, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2014) 

(requiring defendant to provide further responses to plaintiff’s inquiries as they related to plaintiff 

and plaintiff’s treatment, where the court found that plaintiff’s question was aimed at the 

treatment plaintiff received and defendant had the requisite knowledge to answer the question). 

Defendant will not be required to answer this interrogatory. 

Interrogatory No. 21 to Rogero, Set One: When a person has a 

lasirated spleen does his white blood cells drop.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is objected to as vague 

and ambiguous, calling for speculation, calling for expert 

testimony, is an incomplete hypothetical, and is not reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

 Plaintiff appears to assert that the relationship between a drop in white blood cells and a 

lacerated spleen is relevant to determining his diagnosis before and after his November 8, 2012 

CT scan. See ECF No. 37 at 6. Defendant argues that the interrogatory calls for speculation 

since “there are many causes for a change in white blood cell count.” Defendant asserts that 

plaintiff is seeking expert testimony and that plaintiff’s “attempt to self-diagnose” is not relevant 

to plaintiff’s case. ECF No. 41 at 6. 

 As in Interrogatory No. 20, the court finds that Interrogatory No. 21 is not sufficiently 

particularized. Plaintiff again seeks general medical information in the form of expert testimony 

and his request is not tailored to the specific facts of his own case. Defendant will not be required 

to respond to this interrogatory. 

Interrogatory No. 23 to Rogero, Set One: If Plaintiff liver, 

spleen and abdominal area looks remarkable according to your final 

report of plaintiff c-scan, why did you also state if anemia sets any 

worst surgery is needed were you doughting your own prognosis of 

Plaintiff. 

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is objected to as vague 

and ambiguous, lacking in foundation, misstates the evidence, 

compound, calling for a narrative, assumes facts not in evidence, 

calling for speculation, calling for expert testimony, is an 

incomplete hypothetical, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 19 of 32
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 

20

the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these 

objections, I did not find that the liver, spleen, or abdominal area 

looked remarkable; conversely, my report states that I found “liver, 

spleen, adrenals and kidneys are unremarkable.” I made no 

mention of anemia or surgery in my report. 

 In his motion to compel, plaintiff appears to assert that Interrogatory No. 23 is relevant to 

his diagnosis and that the conflicting reports issued by Rogero bear on Rogero’s credibility. 

Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Rogero issued one report finding plaintiff’s abdominal area, 

liver, and spleen appeared “remarkable,” and issued a separate report stating that surgery would 

be entertained if the patient gets worse. See ECF No. 37 at 6. Plaintiff directs the court’s 

attention to the reports attached as exhibits to the complaint. 

 The court has reviewed Dr. Rogero’s report discussing plaintiff’s CT scan, ECF No. 1 at 

29, as well as the preliminary report, id. at 27-28. Rogero’s report states that the “[l]iver, spleen, 

adrenals and kidneys are unremarkable,” and the report makes no mention of anemia or surgery. 

ECF No. 1 at 29 (emphasis added). The preliminary report, on the other hand, states as follows: 

“if the patient getting [sic] any worse will entertain surgical options.” However, it appears that 

the preliminary report was issued by Dr. Tarig A. Samarkandy, not by defendant Rogero. See 

ECF No. 1 at 27-28. 

 Plaintiff’s interrogatory inquires as to why Rogero stated that plaintiff may need surgery if 

his anemia gets worse. Defendant responded that his report makes no mention of anemia or 

surgery. In light of defendant’s response, the court finds that defendant has sufficiently 

responded to plaintiff’s interrogatory, and no further response will be required as to Interrogatory 

No. 23. 

 For the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied as to the Interrogatories 

propounded on defendant Rogero. 

IV. Discovery Requests Served on Defendant Rodriguez 

With respect to defendant Rodriguez, the following three motions are presently before the 

court: (1) plaintiff’s motion to compel Rodriguez to respond to Request for Production of 

Documents, Set One, ECF No. 47; (2) plaintiff’s motion to compel Rodriguez to provide further 

responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, ECF No. 59; and (3) plaintiff’s 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 20 of 32
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 

21

motion to compel Rodriguez to provide further responses to Interrogatories, Set One, ECF No. 

60. 

A. Request for Production of Documents, Set One (ECF Nos. 47 and 59) 

i. January 27, 2015 Motion to Compel (ECF No. 47) 

Plaintiff served defendant Rodriguez with Request for Production of Documents, Set One 

on October 21, 2014. By order filed December 23, 2014, the court extended the time for 

defendant Rodriguez to serve plaintiff with his discovery responses until thirty days after the 

district judge’s adoption of this court’s companion findings and recommendations.19 ECF No. 36. 

The findings and recommendations were adopted by the district judge on March 6, 2015. ECF 

No. 54. Accordingly, defendant Rodriguez’s discovery responses were due on April 6, 2015. 

On January 27, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to compel Rodriquez to respond to Request 

for Production of Documents, Set One. ECF No. 47. Plaintiff’s motion appears to be based on 

his belief that Rodriguez’s responses were due within thirty days of the date the findings and 

recommendations were filed, rather than the date the findings and recommendations were adopted 

by the district judge. Because Rodriguez’s responses were not yet due at the time plaintiff filed 

his January 27, 2015 motion to compel, the motion is denied as premature. 

ii. March 25, 2015 Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59) 

Defendant Rodriguez served his responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set 

One on plaintiff on March 11, 2015. On March 25, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to compel 

Rodriguez to provide further responses to plaintiff’s production requests. ECF No. 59. 

Defendant Rodriguez opposed the motion. ECF No. 61. 

RFP No. 2: One complete copy of MSCP CtC treatment center Log 

Book of officers defendants R. Rodriguez and H. Singh for Log in’s 

and Log out’s for the day of November 8, 2012. 

Response: Defendant produces as Attachment B the Daily 

Urgent/Emergent Tracking System log for November 8, 2012. 

 In his motion to compel, plaintiff acknowledges that defendant provided him with a copy 

 

19 Defendant Singh was also granted the same extension of time for serving his discovery 

responses on plaintiff. ECF No. 36. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 21 of 32
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 

22

of a log sheet, but states that it is not the log sheet that plaintiff requested. ECF No. 59 at 2. 

Plaintiff clarifies that he seeks a copy of the log tracking the officers’ in and out times at their 

work stations at the CTC treatment center, rather than the log tracking the location of inmates. Id. 

In response, defendant Rodriguez explains that he misunderstood plaintiff’s initial request, and 

has since provided plaintiff with a copy of defendant Rodriguez and defendant Singh’s sign-in 

sheets for November 8, 2012. ECF No. 61 at 2.20 Because plaintiff has received the requested 

information, plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Request No. 2 is denied as moot. 

RFP No. 3: Two complete copies of M.C.S.P. sally port 

transportation Log Book. Log out’s for the morning of November 

8, 2012 of defendants R. Rodriguez and H. Singh of Inmate Smith 

T-80524. 

Response: Defendant produces as Attachment C a complete copy 

of the M.C.S.P. Sallyport Register. 

In his motion to compel, plaintiff states that he seeks a copy of the Sallyport log tracking 

the movements of the officers, not the log tracking plaintiff’s movements. Defendant Rodriguez 

explains in his opposition that Mule Creek State Prison maintains one Sallyport log for state and 

private vendor vehicles, and that this log includes vehicles used to transport inmates outside of 

prison. ECF No. 61 at 3. Rodriguez states that a copy of this log was provided to plaintiff on 

March 11, 2015 in response to plaintiff’s production request. Id. As the court understands 

defendant’s response, there is one Sallyport log and it has already been provided to plaintiff. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Request No. 3 is denied since he 

has been provided with the document requested. 

RFP No. 4: Once complete copy of a diagram map of M.C.S.P. 

CtC triag treatment center. 

Response: Objection, this request seeks information that is not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Allowing inmates access to maps detailing the specifics 

of prison layout threatens the safety of inmates and staff and 

security of the institution. Defendant does not have in his 

possession, custody, or control any documents responsive to this 

 

20 Defendant notes that defendant Singh’s November 8, 2012 sign-in sheet indicates that Singh 

was not present in the treatment center on November 8, 2012. ECF No. 61 at 2. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 22 of 32
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 

23

request, and is under no legal obligation to compile or create 

documentary evidence. 

With respect to defendant Rodriguez, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Rodriguez 

retaliated against plaintiff and was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs 

when he interfered with plaintiff’s medical care during an emergency trip to San Joaquin General 

Hospital. See ECF No. 1. In his motion to compel, plaintiff asserts that a map or diagram of the 

treatment center at Mule Creek State Prison is relevant to establishing the location of defendant 

Rodriguez’s workstation in relation to Dr. Rudas’ office, where plaintiff attempted to obtain 

medical care before and after November 8, 2012. See ECF No. 59 at 3. However, it is not clear 

how the location of defendant Rodriguez’s workstation at Mule Creek State Prison is relevant to 

the claims in plaintiff’s complaint, which primarily focus on events that occurred at San Joaquin 

General Hospital.21 

 Defendant contends that allowing inmates access to maps of detailing specific prison 

layouts implicates safety concerns within the prison. ECF No. 61 at 3. Plaintiff responds that 

safety is not an issue because plaintiff is no longer at Mule Creek State Prison, the treatment 

center is “away from the main yard,” and a number of inmates travel throughout the treatment 

center on a daily basis. ECF No. 61 at 3. Defendant’s concern regarding prison safety is well 

taken, as the court recognizes the potential dangers associated with inmates possessing maps of a 

particular prison. In the present case, the court finds that defendant’s interest in prison safety 

outweighs plaintiff’s marginal, if any, need for a map of the Mule Creek treatment center. If 

plaintiff requires evidence that defendant Rodriguez’s workstation is near Dr. Rudas’ office, 

plaintiff may draw his own diagrams or testify as to the location of Rodriguez’s workstation, as 

plaintiff appears to have personal knowledge of the layout of the treatment center and the location 

 

21 Plaintiff’s complaint does appear to allege that defendant Rodriguez continued to interfere 

with plaintiff’s medical care after plaintiff returned to Mule Creek State Prison from San Joaquin 

General Hospital. However, plaintiff’s vague allegations of continued interference appear to be 

based solely on plaintiff’s assertion that Rodriguez continued to work in the Mule Creek 

Treatment Center and plaintiff continued to be denied the medical care he desired. In other 

words, plaintiff appears to assert that because he was not receiving adequate medical care, it must 

have been because Rodriguez was interfering. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 23 of 32
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 

24

of Rodriguez’s desk.22 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied as to RFP No. 4. 

RFP No. 5: One photo while standing inside trige treatment exam 

room exiting door towards T. Seng’s office. 

Response: Objection, this request seeks information that is not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Allowing inmates access to photographs detailing 

specifics of prison design threatens the safety of inmates and staff 

and security of the institution. Defendant is not aware of, and does 

not have in his possession, custody, or control any documents 

responsive to this request, and is under no legal obligation to 

compile or create documentary evidence. 

The court’s review of Request No. 5 indicates that plaintiff may be asking for a specific 

photograph to be taken and then provided to plaintiff, not that an existing photograph be 

produced. Defendant is not obligated to create such a photograph in response to plaintiff’s 

production request. See Goolsby v. Carrasco, 2011 WL 2636099 at *8-9 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2011) 

(denying plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents where plaintiff’s request required 

defendant to “create documents, as opposed to produce already existing documents”). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Request No. 5 is denied. 

RFP No. 6: One complete photo in main hallway of MCSP CtC 

triage treatment center wright outside main exam room in hallway 

between Dr. Tseng. 

Response: Objection, this request seeks information that is not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Allowing inmates access to photographs detailing 

specifics of prison design threatens the safety of inmates and staff 

and security of the institution. Defendant is not aware of, and does 

not have in his possession, custody, or control any documents 

responsive to this request, and is under no legal obligation to 

compile or create documentary evidence. 

 Plaintiff again appears to request that defendant take a specific photograph and provide it 

to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Request No. 6 is denied. 

 For the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel Rodriguez to provide further 

responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is denied. 

 

22 Should plaintiff want to include this information in his motion for summary judgment, plaintiff 

may file a supplemental declaration describing the location of the defendant Rodriguez’s 

workstation at Mule Creek State Prison. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 24 of 32
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 

25

B. Interrogatories, First Set (ECF No. 60) 

Plaintiff served Interrogatories, First Set on defendant Rodriguez and Rodriguez served 

timely responses on March 11, 2015. On March 30, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to compel 

Rodriguez to provide further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9. ECF No. 60. 

Defendant opposed the motion. ECF No. 62. 

Interrogatory No. 2, Set One: Have you ever had a civil law suit 

against you if yes how many and whate for? 

Response: Objection, this interrogatory is compound and seeks 

information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these 

objections, Rodriguez responds as follows: 

As far as I am aware, while employed by CDCR, I have only been 

named as a Defendant in this lawsuit. 

Plaintiff’s request for a further response to Interrogatory No. 2 appears to be based on his 

belief that defendant’s response to Interrogatory No. 2 is contradicted by his response to 

Interrogatory No. 3, in which defendant states that he has had two inmate appeals filed against 

him while employed with CDCR. However, plaintiff appears to conflate the prison grievance 

process with the filing of a civil lawsuit. Because not every inmate appeal will necessarily lead to 

the filing of a civil lawsuit, there is nothing contradictory about Rodriguez’s statement that he has 

had two inmate appeals filed against him, but has only been named as a defendant in the present 

civil lawsuit. The court finds that defendant has provided a sufficient response to Interrogatory 

No. 2. No further response will be required. 

Interrogatory No. 3, Set One: While working for (CDCR) have 

any inmate’s filed, any 602 compliants on you claiming retaliation 

if yes how many. 

Response: Objection, this interrogatory is compound, and is 

overbroad and vague as to time and place. Without waiving these 

objections, Rodriguez responds as follows: 

In my 28 years of employment with CDCR, as far as I am aware, 

only two appeals were filed against me. 

Plaintiff argues that defendant’s response is incomplete because he did not indicate 

whether the two appeals filed against him included claims of retaliation. ECF No. 60 at 2. At the 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 25 of 32
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 

26

same time, plaintiff also contends that his interrogatory required a “yes” or “no” answer. See id. 

In opposition, defendant argues that plaintiff has now expanded his request to include the 

subject matter of the appeals filed, and asserts that plaintiff has not explained how the information 

is relevant. ECF No. 62 at 4. Defendant also provides the following clarification: “Yes, 

Defendant Rodriguez is aware of two appeals filed against him during his 28 years of 

employment, and due to the length of time, no, he does not recall whether the claim in either or 

both of those two appeals was retaliation.” Id. Defendant further argues that he cannot be 

compelled to provide an answer he does not recall, and that he must make only a reasonable effort 

to respond to plaintiff’s inquiry. Id. 

Here, plaintiff’s original interrogatory can be reasonably interpreted as asking how many 

602 complaints claiming retaliation have been filed against defendant Rodriguez during the time 

Rodriguez was employed by the CDCR. Rodriguez’s answer is incomplete in that it does not 

specify whether the two appeals filed against him were for retaliation – the only type of appeal 

plaintiff inquired about. While defendant is only required to make a reasonable effort to respond 

to plaintiff’s interrogatory, see Atcherley v. Clark, No. 1:12CV00225 LJODLBPC, 2014 WL 

5902497, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2014), defendant has not provided the court with sufficient 

information to determine whether his efforts to respond were reasonable. For example, it is 

unclear whether defendant made any effort to locate the appeals in a database, or if he relied 

solely on his memory in answering plaintiff’s inquiry. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is therefore granted to the extent that defendant shall be 

required to file a declaration with the court explaining his efforts to locate the information. In the 

alternative, defendant may choose to inform plaintiff whether the two appeals filed against him 

were for retaliation, if he is able to locate the information. 

Interrogatory No. 6, Set One: On November 8, 2012 who did you 

obtain information from about Plaintiff previous civil lawsuit 

against some (CDCR) officers. 

Response: Objection, this interrogatory is not reasonably calculated 

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is vague as to time 

and place, and calls for hearsay. Without waiving these objections, 

and assuming, based on the allegations in the Complaint that 

Plaintiff is referring to when he was transported to San Joaquin 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 26 of 32
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 

27

General Hospital on November 8, 2012, Rodriguez responds as 

follows: 

I do not recall discussing lawsuits filed by Smith with anybody on 

November 8, 2012. As far as I recall, I spoke on the telephone 

while at still [sic] Mule Creek with a staff person from the 

Investigative Services Unit (ISU) about a pending administrative 

appeal that needed to be resolved that week and was instructed to 

ask the doctor at the hospital whether Plaintiff could return to the 

prison for that appeal. 

In his motion to compel, plaintiff argues that defendant sidestepped the question posed in 

the interrogatory and instead introduced “new evidence” that defendant Rodriguez had a phone 

conversation with an ISU staff member regarding a pending administrative appeal. Plaintiff 

asserts that no appeal was pending and that he is entitled to know the name of the ISU staff 

member, who could provide information regarding what was said during the conversation with 

defendant Rodriguez. See ECF No. 60 at 3. 

 In opposition, defendant argues that plaintiff has attempted to expand the scope of his 

interrogatory to include the name of the ISU staff member and the details of the conversation 

defendant had with the ISU staff member. Defendant also provides the following clarification: 

No, Defendant Rodriguez did not discuss previous lawsuits filed by 

Smith with anyone on November 8, 2012. Yes, on November 8, 

2012, Defendant Rodriguez recalls a phone conversation with an 

ISU staff person instructing him to ask the hospital doctor whether 

Smith could be returned to the prison for a pending administrative 

appeal. Defendant Rodriguez does not recall the ISU staff person’s 

name. 

ECF No. 62 at 5. 

 Here, the court finds that defendant Rodriguez has sufficiently responded to plaintiff’s 

interrogatory. Plaintiff’s interrogatory asked from whom defendant received information on 

November 8, 2012 regarding plaintiff’s prior civil lawsuit against other CDCR officers. 

Defendant responded that he does not recall discussing plaintiff’s civil lawsuits with anyone on 

November 8, 2012. To the extent plaintiff requests information as to the identity of the staff 

person defendant spoke with regarding a pending administrative appeal, the information falls 

outside the scope of the original interrogatory. See Scott v. Palmer, No. 1:09-CV-01329-LJO, 

2014 WL 6685810, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2014) (plaintiff is not entitled to expand the scope 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 27 of 32
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 

28

of discovery beyond that sought in the initial discovery request). Plaintiff’s motion to compel 

will be denied as to Interrogatory No. 6. 

Interrogatory No. 7, Set One: Once you took Plaintiff c-scan in to 

be read by defendant doctor Grant Rogero, did you walk wright 

back out to the waiting. 

Response: Objection, this interrogatory assumes as true facts that 

are in dispute, is vague as to time and place, calls for speculation, 

and is unintelligible. Without waiving these objections, and 

assuming, based on the allegations in the Complaint that Plaintiff is 

referring to when he was transported to San Joaquin General 

Hospital on November 8, 2012, Rodriguez responds as follows: 

I would not have handled Plaintiff’s c-scan. When officers are at an 

outside facility, we do not handle documents because everything is 

computerized and test results are transmitted electronically to the 

doctor who will read the results. 

Plaintiff argues that defendant did not answer the interrogatory posed to him and that he 

should be required to state whether he went “back out to the waiting room area with defendant 

Singh.” See ECF No. 60 at 4. Defendant argues that he answered the interrogatory by explaining 

why “the physical act of [defendant] carrying a c-scan in to be read by Dr. Rogero was an 

impossibility,” and thus he was unable to answer the remainder of plaintiff’s interrogatory. ECF 

No. 62 at 6-7. Defendant’s point is well taken. In light of defendant’s response that he did not 

take plaintiff’s c-scan in to be read by Dr. Rogero, defendant cannot provide an answer as to what 

he did next. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as to this interrogatory. 

Interrogatory No. 8, Set One: The third time defendant doctor 

Grant Rogero came out his office whate did he say to you and 

defendant H. Singh about Plaintiff. 

Response: Objection, this interrogatory assumes as true facts that 

are in dispute, is vague as to time and place, and calls for 

speculation and hearsay. Without waiving these objections, and 

assuming, based on the allegations in the Complaint that Plaintiff is 

referring to when he was transported to San Joaquin General 

Hospital on November 8, 2012, Rodriguez responds as follows: 

I do not recall specifically the doctor going in and out of his office 

numerous times on November 8, 2012. As far as I can recall, 

before Plaintiff was transported to the hospital on November 8, 

2012, I was instructed by ISU to ask the doctor that if possible 

could Plaintiff return to prison because he had an administrative 

appeal to be resolved that week. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 28 of 32
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 

29

Plaintiff contends that defendant should be compelled to answer this interrogatory 

“correctly” and to address the events that occurred at San Joaquin General Hospital, rather than 

focusing on the phone call that took place at Mule Creek State Prison. See ECF No. 60 at 4-5. 

In his opposition, defendant clarified his response as follows: “Defendant Rodriguez does 

not recall the doctor going in and out of an office numerous times, nor does he recall what the 

doctor said the third time, if in fact he entered and exited an office three times.” ECF No. 62 at 8. 

Defendant cannot be compelled to provide an answer that he does not recall. Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel will be denied as to Interrogatory No. 8.

Interrogatory No. 9, Set One: What did you hear Plaintiff express 

to you and defendant Singh through the holding cell door. 

Response: Objection, this interrogatory is vague as to time and 

place, ambiguous, and confusing with respect to “what did you hear 

Plaintiff express,” and the information sought is not reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 

waiving these objections, and assuming, based on the allegations in 

the Complaint that Plaintiff is referring to when he was transported 

to San Joaquin General Hospital on November 8, 2012, Rodriguez 

responds as follows: 

San Joaquin Hospital does not have holding cells in the emergency 

room. I do not have any recollection of Plaintiff being in a holding 

cell at Mule Creek. 

 In his motion to compel, plaintiff explains that after his CT scan, he was taken to a 

“holding cell” next to defendant Rogero’s office. See ECF No. 60 at 5. Plaintiff asserts that 

defendant Rodriguez has not fully answered the interrogatory posed to him, which asks what 

Rodriguez heard plaintiff express through the holding cell door. See id. 

 In his opposition, defendant provides the following clarification: “Defendant Rodriguez 

does not recall Smith being in a holding cell at San Joaquin General Hospital, nor does he recall 

Smith expressing anything while being in a holding cell.” ECF No. 62 at 9. 

 The court finds that although plaintiff’s interrogatory is somewhat vague, it does not 

preclude a more direct response. Plaintiff must have been “held” somewhere in San Joaquin 

General Hospital after his CT scan on November 8, 2012. While this location may not have been 

in a “holding cell” per se, plaintiff is clearly asking what Rodriguez heard plaintiff say from the 

room or location plaintiff was kept in after his CT scan. Rodriguez attempted to clarify his 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 29 of 32
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 

30

response in his opposition, but his clarification is ambiguous. The court cannot tell whether 

Rodriguez is representing that he does not recall plaintiff expressing anything while he was in 

whatever location he was held in after the CT scan, or whether Rodriguez’s statement that he does 

not recall plaintiff expressing anything while in a holding cell follows from the assertion that San 

Joaquin General Hospital does not have holding cells. Accordingly, defendant shall be required 

to supplement his response and answer the following inquiry: What did you hear plaintiff express 

to you and defendant Singh from the location where plaintiff was held after his CT scan? If 

defendant does not recall plaintiff expressing anything at all to him after plaintiff’s CT scan, 

defendant should clarify this in his response. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel a further 

response is granted as to Interrogatory No. 9. 

Interrogatory No. 15, Set One: Why did you tell defendant doctor 

Grant Rogero that plaintiff was a snitch. 

Response: Objection, this interrogatory assumes as true facts that 

are in dispute, and is vague as to time and place. Without waiving 

these objections, and assuming, based on the allegations in the 

Complaint that Plaintiff is referring to when he was transported to 

San Joaquin General Hospital on November 8, 2012, Rodriguez 

responds as follows: 

I did not tell the doctor that Plaintiff was a snitch. The paperwork 

transport officers receive before taking an inmate to an outside 

facility provides very basic information, such as the inmates 

commitment offense, enemies, and escape history, but officers 

would not have access to information regarding inmate prison 

history. Further, I had no independent knowledge of Plaintiff 

before the transport. 

Plaintiff contends that defendant Rodriguez’s response to Interrogatory No. 15 is 

misleading.23 ECF No. 60 at 6. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that defendant’s statement that he 

had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s prison history is contradicted by his response to Interrogatory 

No. 6, in which defendant stated that on November 8, 2012, an ISU staff member told defendant 

that plaintiff had an administrative appeal pending. Id. 

Defendant asserts that the motion to compel should be denied because he fully answered 

 

23 It is unclear whether plaintiff seeks to compel defendant Rodriguez to supplement his response 

to Interrogatory No. 15, or if plaintiff merely intended to point out alleged discrepancies in 

defendant’s responses. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 30 of 32
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 

31

Interrogatory No. 15, which asks only why defendant Rodriguez told defendant Rogero that 

plaintiff was a snitch. ECF No. 62 at 10. Defendant’s point is well taken. Interrogatory No. 15 is 

limited to whether Rodriguez told Rogero that plaintiff was a snitch, and Rodriguez responded 

that he did not make this statement. Rodriguez’s answer to plaintiff’s interrogatory is sufficient 

and requiring a further response here would be futile, as the issue of whether Rodriguez told 

Rogero that plaintiff was a snitch is a factual dispute to be resolved at trial. Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel is denied as to Interrogatory No. 15. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents from defendant Rogero (ECF 

No. 43) is denied; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents from defendant Rogero (ECF 

No. 35) is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted as to the RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 

and 4 to the extent that defendant Rogero is required to file a statement with court 

within ten (10) days of the date of this order indicating whether he received the 

requested documents by subpoena. If he received the documents, he shall produce 

them to plaintiff. As to RFP No. 5, the motion is denied; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Rogero to provide supplemental responses to 

Interrogatories, Set One, (ECF No. 37) is denied; 

4. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents from defendant Rodriguez (ECF 

No. 47) is denied;

5. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents from defendant Rodriguez (ECF 

No. 59) is denied; 

6. Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Rodriguez to provide supplemental responses 

to Interrogatories, First Set (ECF No. 60) is granted in part and denied part. As to 

Interrogatory No. 3, plaintiff’s motion is granted to the extent that defendant 

Rodriguez is required to file a declaration with the court within ten (10) days from the 

date of this order, explaining his efforts to determine if the two appeals filed against 

him included retaliation claims. In the alternative, defendant may choose to inform 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 31 of 32
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 

32

plaintiff whether the two appeals filed against him were for retaliation. As to 

Interrogatory No. 9, plaintiff’s motion is granted and defendant is directed to file a 

supplemental response within ten (10) days indicating what he heard plaintiff express 

to defendant Rodriguez and defendant Singh from the location plaintiff was kept in 

following plaintiff’s CT scan on November 8, 2012. As to Interrogatories 2, 6, 7, 8, 

and 15, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied; and 

7. Plaintiff shall have sixty days from the date of service of this order to respond to 

defendant Rodriguez’s pending motion for summary judgment. 

DATED: September 29, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 79 Filed 09/30/15 Page 32 of 32