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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2515 FCD PAN P

vs.

ANDREASEN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 5, 2006, defendants filed a motion for an extension of the discovery

deadline set in the scheduling order filed February 22, 2006. Defendants sought the extension for

the limited purpose of completing plaintiff’s deposition. The record reflects that plaintiff’s

deposition was conducted on June 27, 2006. (See Ex. A to Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment, filed August 11, 2006.) Accordingly, defendants’ motion for extension of time will be

denied as moot.

On June 9, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery responses. Plaintiff

seeks to compel a further response to the first request in his second request for production of

documents, served on defendants on or about March 17, 2006. By that request, plaintiff sought

“any and all ‘Utilization Management Request/Authorization for Treatment’ forms processed

Case 2:04-cv-02515-FCD-EFB Document 34 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 3
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

with request to plaintiff’s back, chest and/or lungs from October 1998 to the present.” 

(Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, filed June 9, 2006, at 3.) Defendant Andreasen objected to the

request as overbroad, contending that the claim raised in this action challenges treatment plaintiff

received for back pain in December 2002, and not to any treatment for his chest or lungs. 

Defendants also objected to the request to the extent that the documents sought by the request

could be accessed by plaintiff through a request for review of his medical records. (Opposition

to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, filed June 22, 2006, at 2.) Notwithstanding the objections, on

January 3, 2006, defendant Andreasen produced to plaintiff “notes from the utilization

management files pertaining to plaintiff from late 2001 to present and with 185 documents from

Plaintiff’s medical record from 1998 to present responsive to Plaintiff’s request.” (Id. at 4.) On

April 5, 2006, defendant Andreasen provided documents from “utilization management files

pertaining to Plaintiff since January 2006.” (Id.)

In his motion, plaintiff takes issue with defendants’ objection to his request, but

he nowhere mentions the documents that were provided by defendants, nor does he contend those

documents were an inadequate response to the request. In addition, plaintiff does not dispute

defendants’ contention that the documents he seeks by this request are equally available to him

through a review of his medical file. For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel will be

denied.

On August 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file and

serve a motion for summary judgment. On August 11, 2006, defendants’ filed a motion for

summary judgment. Plaintiff’s opposition to said motion was due on September 1, 2006, see

Order filed July 21, 2005, and has not yet been filed. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s August

14, 2006 request for extension of time will be granted. Plaintiff will be granted a period of thirty

days from the date of this order to file and serve an opposition to defendants’ motion for

summary judgment and, as appropriate, a cross-motion for summary judgment. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02515-FCD-EFB Document 34 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 3
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

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

1. Defendants’ June 5, 2006 motion for an extension of time is denied as moot;

2. Plaintiff’s June 9, 2006 motion to compel is denied; and

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve an opposition to defendants’ August 11, 2006 motion for summary judgment and, as

appropriate, a cross-motion for summary judgment. Defendants’ reply brief and/or opposition to

a cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed and served fourteen days thereafter.

DATED: September 12, 2006.

12/bb

will2515.36(2)

Case 2:04-cv-02515-FCD-EFB Document 34 Filed 09/13/06 Page 3 of 3