The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF Nos. 65)
Plaintiff Leonard Farley ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
I. INTRODUCTION; PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint has been screened and found to state a cognizable claim against Defendants Capot and Tate. (Order, ECF No. 17.) Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22); it was granted on March 25, 2009 (ECF No. 33). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that the claim against Defendant Capot had been properly dismissed, but that the district court had erred in dismissing the claim against Defendant Tate. (Mem., ECF No. 39.) Accordingly, the case proceeded against Defendant Tate, and he filed his Answer on August 25, 2010. (Answer, ECF No. 48.) The parties then undertook discovery.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's January 25, 2011 Motion to compel Defendant Tate's further responses to Plaintiff's request for production of documents, interrogatories and requests for admission. (Mot., ECF No. 65.) Defendant Tate filed an Opposition on February 14, 2011. (Opp'n, ECF No. 66.)
Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant Tate's additional response to all of Plaintiff's discovery requests. Plaintiff's various requests are listed, by category of discovery device, below:
A. Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents
1. Any and all grievances, complaints, or other documents received by the Defendants or their agents at Tehachapi State Prison concerning mistreatment, inadequate medical care, denial of treatment of inmates by Defendant Dr. Harold Tate, and any memoranda, investigative files, or other documents created in response to such documents, since January 1, 2005.
2. Any and all policies, directives, or instructions to staff governing sick call procedures, both in general population and in segregation.
3. The Plaintiff's complete medical records from September 5, 2004 to the date of [Defendant Tate's] response.
4. Any logs, lists, or other documentation reflecting grievances filed by Tehachapi State Prison inmates about receiving inadequate medical care, or denial of treatment from Dr. Harold Tate, from January 1, 2004 to the Date of [Defendant Tate's] response.
5. Any and all documents created by any Tehachapi State Prison staff member in response to a grievance filed by the Plaintiff in January, 2005 concerning his medical care.
6. Any and all documents created by any Tehachapi State Prison staff member from September 5, 2004 to date, concerning the Plaintiff's medical care and not included in items 4,5,6, of [Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents].
B. Plaintiff's Interrogatories Combined with Requests for Production of Documents
1. State the duties of Defendant Dr. Harold Tate, Chief Medical Officer at Tehachapi State Prison. If those duties are set forth in any job description or other document, produce the document
2. State the duties of Defendant Dr. Harold Tate, Chief Medical Officer at Tehachapi State Prison, insofar as they pertain to providing medical care to prisoners or transportation of prisoners to medical appointments or facilities. If those duties are set forth in any job description or other document, product the document.
3. State the names, titles, and duties of all staff members at Tehachapi State Prison, other than Defendant Tate, who have responsibility for scheduling prisoners' medical appointments outside the prison, or for evaluating requests for specialized treatment or evaluation. If those duties are ...