United States District Court, E.D. California
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
Motion to Compel
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.
Applicable Legal Standards
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.
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.
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)).
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.
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