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.

Owens v. Clark

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 15, 2017

DERRICK OWENS, Plaintiff,
v.
JACKIE CLARK, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. Introduction

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed with this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This action proceeds on plaintiff's claims that defendants Clark, Dr. Ko, Dr. Ditomas, R.N. Zink, and Wendy Harris, failed to provide adequate pain medication for his chronic and severe pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 24.) Multiple motions are pending; the undersigned addresses each below.

         II. Motion to Compel

         On April 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant Dr. Ko to further respond to plaintiff's request for the production of documents. Plaintiff contends the requested documents are highly relevant and likely to lead to admissible evidence. Defendants oppose the motion, alleging that plaintiff failed to meet and confer prior to filing his motion, and have subsequently provided plaintiff with a response to request for production no. 1, but that Dr. Ko stands on his other objections to the requests. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

         A. Applicable Legal Standards

         Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). “Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.

         With respect to requests for production, a party may propound requests for production of documents that are within the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a). A party objecting to a request for production must state the reasons for the objection. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2)(B).

         Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3) (B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.'” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)).

         B. Discussion

         1. Request for Production No. 1: Because defendant Dr. Ko has now provided documents responsive to this request, plaintiff's motion to compel further response is denied.

         2. Request for Production No. 2:

Copies of any and all 602 Inmate Appeals written against the above named defendant while employed as a Medical Provider by California ...

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.