Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dasenbrook v. Enenmoh

United States District Court, E.D. California

October 15, 2014

ROBIN DASENBROOK, Plaintiff,
v.
A. ENENMOH, et al., Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND/OR REOPEN DISCOVERY [ECF Nos. 49, 57, 63, 65, 67], AND MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY [ECF No. 55] ORDER AND NOTICE AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DIRECTING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY STU SHERMAN, WARDEN OF CORCORAN SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND TREATMENT FACILITY ORDER DIRECTING CLERK'S OFFICE TO SERVE COPY OF SUBPOENA WITH ORDER ORDER REOPENING DISCOVERY AS TO DEFENDANT PAGE

DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Robin Dasenbrook ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants Enenmoh, Page, Perez and blonde Doe 1 for claims of negligence and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On September 10, 2013, Defendant Enenmoh filed an answer. On September 11, 2013, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order. The discovery cut-off date was set for February 10, 2014, and the dispositive motion deadline was set for April 9, 2014. On March 7, 2014, Defendant Page filed an answer to the amended complaint.

On January 30, 2014, Defendants Enenmoh and Page requested an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents ("RPD"), Sets 1 and 2, Plaintiff's Interrogatories ("ROG"), Set 1, and Plaintiff's Request for Admissions ("RFA"), Set 1. On February 4, 2014, the Court granted Defendants' motion. On March 7, 2014, Defendants requested an additional extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. On March 14, 2014, the Court granted an additional extension. The deadline for responding to Plaintiff's above-noted discovery requests was moved to March 21, 2014.

On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. On April 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for enlargement of time with respect to Defendants' discovery responses. On April 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel discovery. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on May 1, 2014. On April 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a third motion to compel discovery. Defendants filed an opposition on May 14, 2014, and Plaintiff filed a reply on May 29, 2014. On April 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a fourth motion to compel discovery. Defendants did not file an opposition. On May 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a fifth motion to compel discovery. Defendants filed an opposition on June 4, 2014. The matters are deemed suitable for decision. Local Rule 230(l).

LEGAL STANDARD

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) (quotation marks omitted). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id . (quotation marks omitted). 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, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012). 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 responding party's objections are not meritorious. Id., at *1.

However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigator. Therefore, to the extent possible, the Court endeavors to resolve the motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange , 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions , 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel Discovery [ECF No. 49]

On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Plaintiff complains that Defendants wrongly refused his January 20, 2014, discovery request as untimely.

The court-ordered deadline for discovery was February 10, 2014, and all discovery requests had to be served on or before January 11, 2014. Plaintiff did not seek an extension of the deadline. Therefore, Defendants are correct that the discovery request was untimely. Plaintiff points out that Defendants obtained an extension of time to complete discovery on February 4, 2014, therefore, his requests were timely. However, the extension was only granted to allow Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's outstanding discovery requests. The deadline for propounding discovery was not moved. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.

II. Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel [ECF Nos. 57 and 66]

On April 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second motion requesting an order to compel Defendant Enenmoh to answer questions 3, 15, 32, and 40 of Plaintiff's Request for Admissions, Set One. Defendant opposed the motion on May 1, 2014.

"A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents." Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(1).

If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).

"The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated, " Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(5), and with other forms of discovery, it is well established that boilerplate objections do not suffice, e.g., Thompson v. Yates, No. 1:06-cv-00763-RCC , 2011 WL 5975469, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011); Everest Indem. Ins. Co. v. Aventine-Tramonti Homeowners Assoc., No. 2:09-cv-1672-RCJ-RJJ , 2011 WL 3841083, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 29, 2011); Palladini v. City of Milpitas, No. CV 06-00779 JW (HRL), 2008 WL 1774090, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2008); Medina v. U.P.S., No. C-06-791 JW PVT, 2007 WL 2123699, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 23, 2007); Eastridge Personnel of Las Vegas, Inc. v. Du-Orpilla, No. 2:06-cv-00776-KJD-PAL, 2007 WL 1232229, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 26, 2007); A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber , 237 F.R.D. 250, 255 (C.D. Cal. 2006).

Finally, "[t]he requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection, " Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(6). "Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served. On finding that an answer does not comply with this rule, the court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer must be served." Id . Efforts to obstruct discovery through objections or evasive responses which lack any good faith basis will not be condoned. Marchand v. Mercy Med. Cntr. , 22 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 1994); In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, No. M 07-1827 SI, 2011 WL 3566419, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011); Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *1.

A. RFA, Set One

RFA No. 3: "Do you admit it makes no sense medically of financially, to send plaintiff to see a specialist doctor at a hospital for appropriate advice, yet once the plaintiff returns to the prison, prison doctors, who are not specialists and ignorant of the diagnosis and treatment of plaintiffs problems decide plaintiff should not be treated as indicated in the specialists Hospital Discharge orders?"

Response: Defendant objected to the request on the grounds that it is vague as to time and as to what services the specialist provided to Plaintiff, and that the request lacked foundation in that it assumes that prison doctors are uninformed as to the diagnoses made by specialists.

Plaintiff contends that his request is not vague or lack foundation. He argues that regardless of whether he is saying prison doctors are uninformed, "either way, they have a duty to admit those parts of this request that can be admitted and qualify or deny the remainder per Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)." Defendant contends that his request was not inadequate because Plaintiff fails to direct Defendant to a specific event or date in Plaintiff's medical history for him to admit or deny, and he cannot admit or deny a statement that is based on assumptions that are not true.

Ruling: Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied. Defendant is correct that Plaintiff fails to direct Defendant to a specific event. In addition, the statement relies on an assumption that Defendant contests as untrue.

RFA No. 15: "Do you admit a serious medical need exists for surgery when sixteen doctors and specialists all order surgery for the plaintiff?"

Response: Defendant states he cannot admit or deny without more information about Plaintiff's medical condition and the surgery that was ordered.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant's response is evasive and incomplete. Plaintiff contends that Defendant does not need more information regarding his medical condition and surgery that was ordered. He states all such information can be located by Defendant in Plaintiff's medical records. He states that Defendant is the Chief Medical Officer and is required to review all referrals for surgery, that Defendant has reviewed Plaintiff's case factors on numerous occasions when responding to inmate appeals, and that Defendant has knowledge of all of Plaintiff's surgeries because he is on the Medical Authorization Review Committee.

Defendant argues that he cannot admit or deny without more information concerning the type of surgery allegedly ordered, when those orders were given, what Plaintiff's medical condition was at those times, and what treatment or medications Plaintiff was receiving at those times surgery was allegedly ordered. Defendant argues he should not be expected to review Plaintiff's entire medical chart and records and provide Plaintiff with his opinion on whether Plaintiff had a serious medical surgery at some unspecified time.

Ruling: Plaintiff's motion is granted. The First Amended Complaint sets forth the sixteen orders for surgery and the dates thereon. First Am. Compl., at 10. Defendant will be ordered to provide a response.

RFA No. 32: "Do you admit that in plaintiffs 602 Appeal Log #SATF XX-XX-XXXXX, page 2 you wrote, in part... "A consultation with Doctor Parvez was completed on May 4, 2011 in the correctional treatment center (CTC), His notes indicate a local examination of your rectum revealed you had one anal fissure and after that an anal fistula. He wrote the hemorrhoids are probably internal, but he could not feel them at the present time. His assessment included the following: anal fissure, anal fistula, and rectal bleeding?"

Response: Defendant objects that the request is not relevant to a claim or defense of any party. Plaintiff argues that the response is evasive and incomplete. He claims he is requesting whether the document was genuine. Defendant states he was not asked to admit or deny the genuineness of a document. Rather, he was asked whether he wrote something in response to a 602 after May 4, 2011, which is not relevant to a surgery that took place in 2009.

Ruling: Plaintiff's motion is denied. The Court agrees that something Defendant wrote in response to Plaintiff's 602 in 2011 as to Plaintiff's condition at that time is not relevant to Defendant's alleged behavior leading up to the surgery which took place in 2009.

RFA No. 40: "Do you admit witness D. Ybarra, RN, mistakenly granted two of plaintiffs 602 appeals #09-12311 and 09-12896 on 6-19-09 falsely stating plaintiffs procedure had been completed? (You yourself did comprehensive reviews of plaintiffs unit health record when plaintiff complained Ybarra slowed down his surgery by falsely stating it was completed)."

Response: Defendant objects on the ground that the request is not relevant to a claim or defense of any party.

Plaintiff argues that the response is evasive and incomplete. Plaintiff states he is challenging the untimeliness of his surgery and states that Defendant did comprehensive reviews of Plaintiff's health record when Plaintiff complained that Ybarra slowed down his surgery by falsely stating it was completed. Defendant contends that whether or not Ybarra was mistaken in her denials of Plaintiff's 602s is irrelevant to any claim or defense concerning the allegation that Defendant failed to make sure that Plaintiff had a hemorrhoidectomy performed in a timely fashion.

Ruling: The Court agrees that the request is irrelevant to any claim or defense in this case. Plaintiff's motion is denied.

B. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to RFA Nos. 3, 32, and 40 are denied. Plaintiff's motion to compel a response to RFA No. 15 is granted.

III. Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel [ECF Nos. 63, 70, 73]

On April 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a third motion to compel. Plaintiff asks that the Court compel Defendant Enenmoh to answer Plaintiff's RPD, Sets One and Two. Defendant opposed the motion on May 14, 2014, and Plaintiff replied to the opposition on May 29, 2014.

A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party's possession, custody or control: any designated documents or tangible things. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1) (quotation marks omitted). "Property is deemed within a party's possession, custody, or control' if the party has actual possession, custody, or control thereof or the legal right to obtain the property on demand." Allen v. Woodford, No. CV-F-05-1104 OWW LJO , 2007 WL 309945, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007) (citing In re Bankers Trust Co. , 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995)); accord Bovarie v. Schwarzenegger, No. 08cv1661 LAB (NLS) , 2011 WL 719206, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011); Evans v. Tilton, No. 1:07CV01814 DLB PC , 2010 WL 1136216, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010).

In responding to discovery requests, a reasonable inquiry must be made, and if no responsive documents or tangible things exist, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g)(1), the responding party should so state with sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the party made a reasonable inquiry and exercised due diligence, Uribe v. McKesson, No. 08cv1285 DMS (NLS) , 2010 WL 892093, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2010). If responsive documents do exist but the responsive party claims lack of possession, control, or custody, the party must so state with sufficient specificity to allow the Court (1) to conclude that the responses were made after a case-specific evaluation and (2) to evaluate the merit of that response. Ochotorena v. Adams, No. 1:05-cv-01525-LJO-DLB (PC) , 2010 WL 1035774, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010). As with previously discussed forms of discovery, boilerplate objections do not suffice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(B), (C); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 408 F.3d at 1149.

A. Timeliness

Defendant first objects that Plaintiff's motion to compel is untimely. Defendant notes that the cut-off date for discovery was February 10, 2014, and Plaintiff's motion to compel was not filed until April 24, 2014. However, as Plaintiff notes, Defendant was granted extensions until March 21, 2014, to file responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not timely seek extensions of time to file motions to compel. While this is true, Plaintiff did seek an extension of time with respect to his discovery requests on April 7, 2014, which the Court has not yet ruled on. [ECF No. 55.] In light of the fact Plaintiff is a pro se litigator, and there has been much unresolved confusion given the timing of Defendant Page's entry into the action, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion to compel should be entertained in the interest of justice. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for extension of time will be construed as a motion to extend time to file his motion to compel and it will be granted nunc pro tunc.

B. RPD, Set One

RPD No. 1: "What are the Millman and Robertson (M&R) Healthcare Management Guidelines? (Please see p. 1-6-1 um [sic] program Health care services protocols - utilization management from plaintiffs initial disclosures already sent)."

Response: Defendants object on the ground that it is not a proper request for production of documents in that it does not seek a readily identifiable document and appears to call for the creation of, rather than the production of, documents.

Plaintiff alleges that that "[a]ll document requests [that Defendants] say call for the creation of documents is not true.... I explained [in my letter to the Attorney General's Office] exactly where these documents can be found and showed that these documents do exist." Defendant argues that the request asks Defendant Enenmoh to tell Plaintiff what the "Millman and Robertson" guidelines are. Defendant Enenmoh states he cannot do this without creating a document. Ruling: Plaintiff's request is denied. Defendant is correct that the request seeks creation of a document.

RPD No. 2: "[P]rovide a copy of the utilization management program within The Health Care Services delivery system (HCSDS)?"

Response: Defendants object on the ground that the documents sought are equally available to Plaintiff as they are to Defendants in that Inmate Medical Services Policies and Procedures are available for Plaintiff to review and copy in the prison law library.

Plaintiff counters that he cannot obtain these documents in the prison library. He states the prison librarian confirmed that these documents were not in the library. Plaintiff cites to a CDCR Form 22 to substantiate his assertion. Defendants, however, note that Senior Librarian Hampson responded to Plaintiff's CDCR 22 and informed Plaintiff that he would "need to do some research regarding the actual accessibility of said [requested] materials."

Ruling: Plaintiff's request is granted. Plaintiff has shown that the document is not equally available to him. Defendants are ordered to produce any responsive documents that may exist.

RPD No. 3: "[P]rovide cop[]ies of the following references taken from utilization management program p. 1-6-3 XII:

a) California Code of regulation, Title 15, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 4, Article 8, sections 3350-3352.1

b) Division 23, Health care services Division memo number 99-0019 and 98-0043

c) medical services for inmates, CDC/HCSD Reference booklet

d) UM program guidelines, July 1999, revised from (UM) utilization management plan 1996."

Response: Defendants object on the ground that the documents sought are equally available to Plaintiff as they are to Defendants in that the documents requested in subparts a) and c) can be found, viewed, and copied by Plaintiff in the prison law library. After a reasonable search, Defendants cannot determine what the memos are in subpart b). Defendants do not have possession, custody, or control of the document requested in subpart d).

As before, Plaintiff states he cannot obtain these documents from the prison library. He claims that the prison librarian confirmed that these documents were not in the prison library, and he cites to a CDCR Form 22 to substantiate that assertion. Defendants note that Senior Librarian Hampson responded to Plaintiff's CDCR 22 and informed Plaintiff that he would need to do some research regarding the actual accessibility of said materials.

Ruling: Plaintiff's request is partially granted. Plaintiff has shown that the documents referenced in subparts a) and c) are not equally available to him. Therefore, Defendants will be ordered to produce those documents. Defendants cannot determine what documents are referenced in subpart b), and Defendants do not have possession, custody or control of the documents referenced in subpart d). Therefore, Plaintiff's motion is denied as to subparts b) and d).

RPD No. 5: "what is the policy outlined in the CDCR scope of services - medical standards of care? (taken from p. 1-6-1 UM program - health care services protocols)."

Response: Defendants object on the ground that it is not a proper request for production of documents in that it does not seek a readily identifiable document and appears to call for the creation of, rather than the production of, documents.

Plaintiff contends that the creation of documents is not true. He states he explained where these documents can be found and showed that they exist. Defendant states the request asks Defendant to tell Plaintiff what CDCR's policy is with respect to "medical standards of care." He states he cannot comply without creating a document.

Ruling: Plaintiff's motion is denied. Defendant is correct that the request calls for the creation of a document.

RPD No. 7: "[P]rovide a copy of the signed form's shown on p. 5-8c-4 at V "Development and Approval of the Standardized procedure" (taken from Gastrointestinal System, Rectal Peri-anal complaints, Health Care Services protocol) which will be reviewed annually - i.e., all annual coppies of this form from RN pages (defendants) 2-12-10 incident date to 2013."

Response: Defendants object on the grounds that the request is overly broad and burdensome. Without waiving this objection, Defendants state they do not have any responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. Plaintiff contends that Defendant wrongly objected to this request on the ground that it calls for the creation of, rather than the production of, documents. However, Defendant challenged the request on the grounds that he does not have control of the requested documents.

Ruling: Plaintiff's request is denied. He fails to show that Defendants' objections are not justified.

RPD No. 8: "[P]rovide a copy of all MARC (medical authorization Review Committee) decisions - Third Level that shall be documented in the plaintiff inmates health record' and to include:

a) cop[]ies of all concurrent Reviews ("Those shall evaluate the ongoing need for acute/sub-acute or non acute levels of care p. 1-6-2) for plaintiff

b) cop[]ies of all retrospective Reviews for plaintiff (see p. 1-6-2 IV - "These shall evaluate the medical necessity and appropriateness of treatment after it has been rendered... etc) for plaintiff

c) cop[]ies of all concurrent Reviews to Include Admissions, continued stays and discharge planning activities (p. 1-6-2 IV UM program - health care services)

d) Copy of Marc Third level Review's decisions on all the Doctor referral for surgery (RFS_ CDC Form 7243 submitted by the following doctors:

11-29-07 Dr. Harpal Bhaika
5-9-08 Dr. Leon
8-11-08 Dr. Beregovskaya
8-22-08 Dr. Schuster
9-3-08 Dr. Moulious
4-22-09 Dr. Peters
4-29-09 Dr. Beregovskaya
7-1-09 Dr. Raman
8-4-09 RFS submitted 2nd level p. 3 for surgery - see exhibit D
8-24-09 Dr. Metts
9-16-09 Dr. Rodriguez
10-21-09 RFS submitted
10-29-09 Nurse Kipps said RES done
11-18-09 Dr. Parvez
12-10-09 Dr. Metts

plus any other RFS submitted by those or any other doctor on different dates - some Dr.'s submitted multiple requests. (see p. 1-6-3 UM-utilization management program, Health Care Services at VIII #7243 forms - RFS - who's [sic] purpose of "concurrent, retrospective reviews was documents")

e) provide a list of all plaintiffs tracking numbers # and the reports, reviews, authorizations for surgery and colonoscopies, etc. utilization management or the CDCR-CMO Enenmoh has on file.

f) provide all documents listed on p. 1-6-3 um utilization management program, health care services at VII documentation, ie:

• Utilization management worksheets for plaintiff
• CDC form 7243
• Utilization management concurrent review and recorded data
• Information requests and information received
• Cop[]ies of other supporting documentation that pertain to plaintiff from 2007-2013"

Response: Defendants object on the grounds that the request is compound and overly broad. Defendants further object that the request seeks documents kept in Plaintiff's Unit Health Record (UHR) and those documents are equally available to Plaintiff in that Plaintiff has the ability to review and make copies of records in his UHR according to prison policy and procedure. Defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks physician's requests for services for other inmates because they would violate third-party privacy rights and are not relevant to any party's claims or defenses nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Defendants object to subpart e) of this request on the grounds that it is not a proper request for production of documents in that it does not seek a readily identifiable document and appears to call for the creation of, rather than the production of, documents. Without waiving these objections, Defendants respond that they do not have any documents in their possession, custody, or control that are responsive to subparts a), b), c), d) or f). Defendants state they searched the Medical Authorization Review (MAR) committee's records and did not find any related to Plaintiff. Further, Defendants produced all documents in their possession, custody, or control that Defendant stated are responsive to subpart e) as Attachment 1.

Plaintiff complains that he cannot obtain these documents, the documents are not in the Defendants' Initial Disclosures, and he cannot locate them in his Unit Health Record. Plaintiff states he stated exactly where he saw them listed in the CDCR Health Care Services protocols, and he alleges that Defendant Enenmoh has access to them.

Ruling: Plaintiff's request is denied. Defendant Enehmoh responded that he made a diligent search for responsive documents and to the extent they were located, they have been produced.

RPD No. 9: "[P]rovide all documentation for all plaintiffs medical appeals (Exhibits A-M) concerning the determination of whether or not said appeals should be accepted as an emergency appeal also to include:

a) include the name and date of health care staff contacted'

b) indicate the basis for the determination of appeals that are determined to be non emergent status' (see p. 1-12-1, chapter 12, Inmate medical appeals tracking program, health care services, protocols sent during plaintiffs initial disclosures."

Response: Defendants object on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to a party's claims or defenses nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it is not a proper request for production of documents in that it does not seek a readily identifiable document and appears to call for the creation of, rather than the production of, documents. Defendants further claim that the documents Plaintiff seeks are equally available to Plaintiff in that Plaintiff has the ability to review and make copies of records in his central file according to prison policy and procedure.

Plaintiff disputes that the request calls for creation of a document. He contends he explained to Defendants where the documents could be found.

Ruling: Plaintiff's request is denied. The request calls for the creation of a document wherein Plaintiff requests Defendant Enenmoh to state which health care staff were responsible for determining whether his medical inmate appeals should be categorized as emergency 602s and to explain the basis for such determinations. Additionally, Plaintiff does not argue that his 602s are not equally available to him.

RPD No. 10: "On 11-25-13 plaintiff saw a psychiatrist who said someone had just updated plaintiffs medical records and files from 2005-2008. Now that the computer files have been updated - provide all medical files from 2007 and Dr. notes from 2007 making sure to include plaintiffs Dr. visits of 1-22-07, 2-21-07, 3-19-07, 3-23-07, 4-26-07, 6-24-07, 9-22-07 and any in Nov. Dec. 07 (in exhibit I, 9-8-2010 plaintiff tried to get 7362 forms) and now needs the above as well. This information is vital to plaintiffs defense and arguments at trial."

Response: Defendants object on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome and the records Plaintiff seeks are equally available to Plaintiff as they are to Defendants in that Plaintiff has the ability to review and make copies of records in his UHR according to prison policy and procedure.

Plaintiff claims that he "cannot get these documents - they are not in the Defendants Initial Disclosures, nor can I find them in my UHR (Unit Health Record). But I did list exactly where I saw them listed in the CDCR Health Care Services protocols the Chief Medical Officer Defendant Enenmoh has access to them." (ECF No. 63 at 5:21-26.)

Ruling: Plaintiff's request is denied. Plaintiff does not dispute that he has the ability to review and make copies of his records contained in his UHR.

RPD No. 11: "[P]rovide a list of all Marc (medical authorization review committee) members from 2007-2013 to include all dates an RFS was submitted/approved by them (see dates above at p. 4 # 8 (d).) Exclude their personal addresses, ssn #'s, etc - just provide a prison contact address plaintiff can contact them without exposing sensitive info "redact" sensitive info."

Response: Defendants object on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome and it is not a proper request for production of documents in that it does not seek a readily identifiable document and appears to call for the creation of, rather than the production of, documents.

Ruling: Plaintiff's request is denied. Plaintiff's request calls for the creation of a document.

RPD No. 12: "[P]rovide list of names of doctor's working at CTC - correctional treatment center, substance abuse treatment facility, Corcoran prison, Corcoran CA 93212 on 2-23-10 during plaintiff's return from Bakersfield Hospital. Plaintiff needs to discover the name of the admitting CTC Doctor who ordered iron and vitamin C when plaintiff returned to the prison)."

Response: Defendants object on the ground that it is not a proper request for production of documents in that it does not seek a readily identifiable document and appears to call for the creation of, rather than the production of, documents.

Ruling: Plaintiff's request is denied. Plaintiff's request calls for the creation of a document.

RPD No. 13: "[P]rovide a copy of the California Health Care Services Memorandum dated 2/1/10 the CMO A. Enenmoh relies on to deny prescribed medications to inmates."

Response: Defendants object on the grounds that it lacks foundation and it seeks information that is not relevant to a party's claims or defenses nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, and after a reasonable search, Defendants do not have any responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control.

Ruling: Plaintiff's request is denied. Defendants state they have conducted a reasonable search and have found no responsive document in their possession, custody, or control.

RPD No. 18: "Please provide a copy of the medical symbol the CDCR uses on the back of Inmate Identification cards to show all CDCR officer's and medical staff this inmate is on chronic care for heart related reasons (plaintiff had one placed on the back of his identification card by R&R receiving and release correctional officers from 2009 onward). It was a caduceus - the winged staff of mercury - now a symbol of the medical professional. R&R or the CMO Enenmoh should have a copy too."

Response: Defendants object on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant to a party's claims or defenses nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiff argues that this symbol is relevant to this lawsuit because it was on the back of his identification card in 2009 and 2010, and he needs it so he can "question witnesses as to the uses of this symbol or why it wasn't used." (ECF No. 63 at 62:7-12.) Defendants argue that the picture of the caduceus symbol has nothing to do with whether Defendants provided negligent medical care or acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs. In addition, Defendants point out that Plaintiff can ask witnesses about the uses of the caduceus symbol with respect to inmate identification cards without showing them a picture.

Ruling: Plaintiff's request is denied. A picture of the caduceus symbol is not relevant to Plaintiff's allegations.

RPD No. 19: "Provide all notes from plaintiffs registered nurse line visit of 2-3-10 to include RN Notes of the chief complaint, quality of pain, obtaining of past medical history, etc. and provide name of registered nurse plaintiff saw."

Response: Defendants object on the ground that the records are equally available to Plaintiff since Plaintiff has the ability to review and make copies of records in his UHR according to prison policy and procedure. Defendants further state that if such documents exist, Defendants already provided them to Plaintiff in Defendant's initial disclosures.

Plaintiff claims that he "cannot get these documents - they are not in the Defendants Initial Disclosures, nor can I find them in my UHR (Unit Health Record). But I did list exactly where I saw them listed in the CDCR Health Care Services protocols the Chief Medical Officer Defendant Enenmoh has access to them." (ECF No. 63 at 5:21-26.)

Ruling: Plaintiff's request is denied. Plaintiff does not dispute that he has equal access to his records in his UHR. In addition, Defendants state they provided all such documents, to the extent they exist, in initial disclosures.

RPD No. 20: "Provide all documents, notes and name of personel plaintiff saw on 11/29/07 for a consultation (mentioned in 602 #2299 Exhibit A dated 4/22/08)."

Response: Defendants object on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to a party's claims or defenses nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and the records Plaintiff seeks are equally available to Plaintiff as they are to Defendants in that Plaintiff has the ability to review and make copies of records in his UHR according to prison policy and procedure. Defendants further state that if such documents exist Defendants already provided them to Plaintiff in Defendant's initial disclosures.

Plaintiff claims that he "cannot get these documents - they are not in the Defendants Initial Disclosures, nor can I find them in my UHR (Unit Health Record). But I did list exactly where I saw them listed in the CDCR Health Care Services protocols the Chief Medical Officer Defendant Enenmoh has access to them." (ECF No. 63 at 5:21-26.)

Ruling: Plaintiff's request is denied. Plaintiff does not dispute that he has equal access to his records in his UHR. In addition, Defendants state they provided all such documents, to the extent they exist, in initial disclosures.

RPD No. 21: "Provide a list of all doctors the CDCR uses that are "Independent contractors" and do specialty work for the CDCR."

Response: Defendants object on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome, it is not a proper request for production of documents in that it does not seek a readily identifiable document and appears to call for the creation of, rather than the production of, documents, and it seeks information that is not relevant to a party's claims or defenses nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiff states that "[a]ll document requests [that Defendants] say call for the creation of documents is not true.... I explained [in my letter to the Attorney General's Office] exactly where these documents can be found and showed that these documents do exist." (ECF No. 63 at 6:14-22.)

Ruling: Plaintiff's request is denied. Plaintiff's request is overly broad and seeks evidence which is not relevant to any of his claims. In addition, the request calls for the creation of a document.

RPD No. 22: "Of these Independent contractors' the CDCR uses (and the CMO or MARC sent plaintiff to) provide forms showing these independent ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.