United States District Court, E.D. California
MONICO J. QUIROGA, III, Plaintiff,
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY MOTIONS TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS DUCES
TECUM, FOR COPYING COSTS, AND FOR SANCTIONS (DOCS. 39, 44,
45, 47, 48, 49, 50)
Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
filed motions to compel production of documents (Doc. 48),
for issuance of subpoenas (Docs. 39, 44, 49), for copying
costs of documents produced in response thereto (Doc. 47),
and for sanctions against Defendant (Docs. 45, 50). Defendant
filed oppositions (Docs. 52, 47, 53) and the time for
Plaintiff to file replies has lapsed. The motions are deemed
submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
are entitled to seek discovery of any non-privileged matter
that is relevant to any claim and/or defense in the action.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The discovery sought may include
information that is not admissible as long as it appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Id. This defines the scope of discovery in
federal civil litigation in general. The party responding to
discovery requests shall use common sense and reason.
E.g., Collins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No.
06-2466-CM-DJW, 2008 WL 1924935, *8 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2008).
Hyper-technical, quibbling, or evasive objections are not
viewed with favor. Further, the responding party has a duty
to supplement any previously provided responses if the
information sought is later obtained, or the response
provided needs correction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e).
Rule of Civil Procedure 34 empowers a party to serve on any
other party a request to produce “any designated
documents . . . which are in the possession, custody or
control of the party upon whom the request is served.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a). Documents are in the “possession,
custody, or control” of the served party if “the
party has actual possession, custody, or control, or has the
legal right to obtain the documents on demand.” In
re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir.1995).
Accordingly, a party may be required to produce documents
turned over to an agent, such as its attorney or insurer.
E.g., Henderson v. Zurn Indus., 131 F.R.D. 560, 567
responding party objects to a discovery request, it is the
moving party's burden, in a motion to compel, to
demonstrate why the objection is not justified. In general,
the moving party must inform the Court which discovery
requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for
each disputed response, inform the Court why the information
sought is relevant, why the response is deficient, and why
any objections stated are not justified.
motion to compel production of documents, Plaintiff seeks
copies of “records, grievances, medical records and
responses to grievances from September 18, 2015 to date
2017” and cites Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL
309945, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2007) for the proposition that he is
entitled to copies of documents which are in Defendant's
possession, custody, or control. (Doc. 48.) Plaintiff
submitted neither the requests that he propounded on
Defendant nor Defendant's responses thereto.
(Id.) Such generalized identification of requested
documents is generally insufficient for purposes of a motion
in his opposition, Defendant quoted Plaintiff's request
and attached his response which indicated that
“Defendant previously produced all medical records
regarding plaintiff from Kern Medical Center and Lerdo Clinic
which include radiology reports and sick call slips.
Defendant is not in possession of inmate grievances/responses
from September 25, 2016, to May 29, 2017, from Lerdo Pretrial
Facility, but is in the process of obtaining these records
via subpoena to Kern County Sheriff's office.”
(Doc. 52, pp. 5-9.) Defendant further stated that an error by
the subpoena service delayed the receipt of those records,
they are due to be produced on September 11, 2017.
(Id., p. 5.) Defendant indicates that he is willing
to provide Plaintiff responsive documents as soon as those
records are received. (Id.)
did not file a reply to Defendant's opposition and the
Court accepts Defendant's representation that he has
provided a copy of his applicable medical records and that he
will provide Plaintiff a copy of the subpoenaed documents
from the Lerdo Pretrial Facility once received.
Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's motion compel
production of documents resolves not only that motion (Doc.
48); moots Plaintiff's requests for subpoenas to the
“County Counsel Administrative Center” for copies
of his medical records and inmate grievances/responses from
Kern Medical Center and Lerdo Pretrial Facility (see
Docs. 39, 44, 49) as well as Plaintiff's “motion to
demonstrate good cause for copies of documents” (Doc.
47); and resolves Plaintiff's motions for sanctions
(Docs. 45, 50) since it is clear that Defendant has complied
and produced copies of documents responsive to
Plaintiff's requests for copies of his applicable medical
records and will do so upon receipt of documents of
Plaintiff's exhaustion efforts once received from Lerdo
as well. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents
in response to his requests for production of documents,
filed on August 14, 2017 (Doc. 48) is DENIED;
2. Defendant SHALL produce a copy of the records he
subpoenaed from the Lerdo Pretrial Facility to Plaintiff
within 14 days of receipt;
3. Plaintiff's requests for subpoenas, filed on May 4,
2017 (Doc. 39), June 28, 2017 (Doc. 44), and August 14, 2017
(Doc. 49) are DISREGARDED as moot;
4. Plaintiff's motion to demonstrate good cause for
copies of documents, filed on July 13, 2017 (Doc. 47) is
DISREGARDED since moot; and
5. Plaintiff's motions for sanctions, filed on June 28,
2017 (Doc. 45) and August 14, 2017 ...