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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

George Bridgette,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0436 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

Runnels, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, prosecuting this

civil rights action on the claims defendants Sandham and Felker

were deliberately indifferent to his arthritis by refusing to

transfer him to a warmer climate as recommended by a physician. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B), plaintiff moves to

compel defendants to produce documents. Defendants oppose.

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not

privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any 

party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information sought need not be 

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 47 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

admissible at trial if the discovery is reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. The court may 

limit discovery if it determines the discovery sought is

unreasonably cumulative or obtainable from a more convenient or

less expensive source, the party seeking discovery had ample

opportunity to obtain the information sought, or the burden or

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). A party has a continuing duty to

supplement, correct or amend discovery responses if the court so

orders or if the party learns the responses were in some material

respect incorrect or incomplete and the information has not

otherwise been made available to other parties. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(e)(2).

Any party may request any other party produce for inspection

documents including writings, drawings, graphs, charts or data

compilations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). The requesting party must

identify the items to be produced and the party upon whom the

request is made must make a written response stating that

inspection will be permitted as requested, unless the party 

objects and states the basis therefor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).

A party may move for an order compelling discovery with

respect to objections or other failure to respond to

interrogatories or requests to produce documents. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 37(a)(2)(B), 33(b)(5), 34(b). 

Plaintiff seeks copies of defendants’ personnel records. 

Defendants object the request seeks material outside the scope of 

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 47 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

discovery.

The objection is sustained.

Plaintiff seeks the address and phone number of each

defendant. Defendants object the request seeks information

outside the scope of discovery.

The objection is sustained on the ground plaintiff has not

shown how they may be relevant to resolving any material factual

dispute. 

Plaintiff seeks a copy of the California Department of

Corrections Standard for Health Care Treatment, Policy, Procedure

and Practice. Defendants object plaintiff can obtain a copy from

the law library.

Without deciding whether defendants’ objection is welltaken, which is doubtful, the court declines to compel their

production because they do not appear to be relevant to

plaintiff’s claim of a constitutional injury.

Plaintiff seeks an order directing defendants to produce

documents identifying the “name and location of the last Prison

the defendants were employed at” and copies of “all relevant

administrative 602 appeal filed and lodged against the

defendants.”

Defendants make no objection but the court nonetheless

declines to order production of the documents because plaintiff

has not shown how they may be relevant to resolving any material

factual dispute. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 47 Filed 11/30/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

For these reasons, plaintiff’s May 31, 2005, motion is

denied.

So ordered.

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 47 Filed 11/30/05 Page 4 of 4