IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 27, 2010
JOHN FRANCIS, PLAINTIFF,
MATTHEW CATE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel discovery. Defendants have filed an opposition. Plaintiff did not file a reply.
First, plaintiff challenges defendants' responses to requests for production of documents numbered 1, 2, 3 and 5. All of these requests pertain to plaintiff's medical records, which plaintiff can obtain through an Olsen Review at the prison. In addition, defendants have provided evidence that plaintiff had the opportunity to review his medical file on June 30, 2010, and August 24, 2010, and received an entire copy of his medical file on August 29, 2010. Plaintiff has not refuted this evidence. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to requests 1, 2, 3 and 5 will be denied.
Finally, plaintiff challenges defendants' response to request for production number 4.
Request No. 4: Any complaints filed against defendants that related to [their] medical training or [handling] of inmates at [their] respective jobs in and for the California Department of Corrections.
(Dkt. No. 49 at 21.) Defendants objected to this request "on the basis that it calls for information particularly to California Penal Code [sic], the United States Constitution and/or subject to the official information privilege; hence no documents will be produced." (Id.) Plaintiff contends he has a right to anything which is in any way "relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending motion." (Dkt. No. 49.) Defendants respond that plaintiff's request is burdensome because defendants would have to review the central file of every inmate ever treated during each defendant's career at every institution that defendant has ever been employed. Moreover, defendants contend production of such documents would violate each inmate's privacy rights.
Defendants' objections are well-taken. Request No. 4 was not narrowly tailored to seek discovery as to claims similar to those raised herein, and plaintiff failed to appropriately limit the time period for which the records were sought. The request as written is overbroad as to the documents requested, as well as the time period sought. Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to Request No. 4 will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's September 20, 2010 motion to compel (dkt. no. 49) is denied.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.