Ahdom v. Lopez et al

Filing 201

ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendants' 173 Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents; Thirty-Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/16/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

BILAL AHDOM,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

S. LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
(ECF No. 173)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19
20

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

21

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Schaefer, Araich, Chen, Shittu, and Ashby for deliberate

22

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

23

Currently before the Court is a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and

24

requests for production of documents filed by Defendants Shittu, Chen and Araich on February

25

29, 2016.1 (ECF No. 173.) Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. Therefore, on April 20,

26
1

27
28

Although there is a pending interlocutory appeal, the Court is not divested of jurisdiction to address this
motion. See Britton v. Co-op Banking Grp., 916 F.2d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990) (“an appeal of an interlocutory
order does not ordinarily deprive the district court of jurisdiction except with regard to the matters that are the
subject of the appeal”); Alice L. v. Dusek, 492 F.3d 563, 564–65 (5th Cir. 2007) (an interlocutory appeal “only
1

1

2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to

2

Defendants’ motion (and other pending discovery motions). (ECF No. 175.)

3

On June 3, 2016, Plaintiff responded, and explained that on or about May 19, 2016, he

4

mistakenly mailed to the Court his responses to Defendant’s discovery requests in lieu of an

5

opposition or statement of non-opposition. The discovery responses were returned to him on or

6

around May 27, 2016, at which point he realized he misinterpreted the Court’s order. Plaintiff

7

requested another opportunity to respond to the pending discovery motions. (ECF No. 179.)

8

The Court granted Plaintiff’s request, and expressed its hope that Plaintiff had sent Defendants

9

some discovery responses that may have eliminated some or all of the parties’ discovery

10
11
12
13

disputes. (ECF No. 184.)
On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a statement asserting that he posed “no opposition to
the [defendants’] motion to compel discovery.” (ECF No. 190.)
On July 24, 2017, in response to an order from the Court, counsel for Defendant Shittu,

14

Chen and Araich reported that Plaintiff had not sent any new responses to the discovery requests

15

that are the subject of their pending discovery motion. Defendants therefore request that this

16

Court order further responses to their discovery requests and order appropriate sanctions for

17

Plaintiff’s refusal to participate in discovery. (ECF No. 196.)

18

Defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 173) is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

19

I.

20

During the original discovery period on the claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint,

21

Defendant Shittu served eighteen interrogatories on Plaintiff; Defendants Chen, Araich, Schaefer

22

and Spaeth served twelve interrogatories; and all Defendants served twenty-one requests for

23

production of documents.2 (ECF No. 173-2, Declaration of Lucas L. Hennes (“Hennes Decl.”) at

24

Exs. A, B and C.) On February 25, 2013, Plaintiff served his responses to Defendants’ discovery

25

requests. (Id. at Exs. D, E.)

26

divests the district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case on appeal.”). The interlocutory appeal relates
solely to Plaintiff’s requests for preliminary injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order, not to matters of
discovery.
2
Defendants Spaeth and Lopez have been dismissed from this action. (ECF No. 152.) Defendant Schaefer
is now represented by other counsel. (ECF No. 89.)

27
28

Background

2

1

On March 25, 2013, Defendants initially moved this Court for an order to compel

2

Plaintiff to provide further responses to their interrogatories and requests for production of

3

documents. (ECF No. 67.) Thereafter, on June 26, 2013, the Court granted Defendant Ashby’s

4

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 74.)

5

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on August 29, 2013, which only named

6

Defendant Ashby as a defendant. (ECF No. 77.) At the Court’s request, Plaintiff informed the

7

Court that the omission of the other defendants was unintentional, and he filed a third amended

8

complaint on November 18, 2013. (ECF No. 90.)

9

As a result of the unsettled nature of the operative complaint and the absence of a

10

scheduling order, on February 27, 2014, the Court denied Defendants’ discovery motions

11

without prejudice to re-filing after a new discovery and scheduling order was issued. (ECF No.

12

105.) On November 30, 2015, the Court issued an Amended Discovery and Scheduling Order.

13

(ECF No. 163.)

14

On February 25, 2016, defense counsel spoke to Plaintiff by telephone regarding his

15

responses to Defendants’ discovery. Plaintiff refused to answer, indicating that he would not

16

respond to any questions unless ordered to do so by the Court. Plaintiff also invoked his Fifth

17

Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to any further questions regarding

18

discovery. (ECF No. 173-2, Hennes Decl. at ¶ 6.) Based on Plaintiff’s response, Defendants

19

filed the instant motion renewing their request for a court order compelling Plaintiff to serve

20

further responses to their interrogatories and requests for production of documents. (ECF No.

21

173.)

22

By their motion, Defendants seek further responses to all of Defendants Chen, Araich,

23

Schaefer, and Spaeth’s Interrogatories No. 1-12, and Defendant Shittu’s Interrogatories No. 1-9,

24

and 12-18. Defendants also seek further responses to their request for production of documents

25

Nos. 1-21. Additionally, Defendants ask the Court to issue sanctions based on Plaintiff’s failure

26

to meet his obligations under the rules of discovery.

27

///

28

///
3

1

II.

2

Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories
A.

3

Standard

Parties are obligated to respond to interrogatories to the fullest extent possible under oath,

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P.

5

33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981) (“objections should be plain

6

enough and specific enough so that the court can understand in what way the interrogatories are

7

alleged to be objectionable”). The responding party shall use common sense and reason. E.g.,

8

Collins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 06-2466-CM-DJW, 2008 WL 1924935, *8 (D. Kan. Apr.

9

30, 2008). A responding party is not generally required to conduct extensive research in order to

10

answer an interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made. L.H. v.

11

Schwarzenegger, No. S-06-2042 LKK GGH, 2007 WL 2781132, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2007).

12

Further, the responding party has a duty to supplement any responses if the information sought is

13

later obtained or the response provided needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).

14

B.

15

As indicated, Defendants seek further responses to Defendants Chen, Araich, Schaefer,

16

and Spaeth’s Interrogatories No. 1-12, and Defendant Shittu’s Interrogatories No. 1-9, and 12-

17

18.

Discussion

18

Defendants Chen, Araich, Schaefer, and Spaeth’s Interrogatories No. 1-12

19

Interrogatory No. 1:

20

If you contend that, between May 24, 2008 and September 11, 2008, you complained to

21

Defendant Lopez that your pain medications were ineffective, and that Lopez failed to act, state

22

all facts in support of your contention.

23

Response:

24

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

25

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is

26

overly broad; burdensome; compound; and based upon these objections, Responding Party

27

cannot respond to this request.

28

///
4

1

Interrogatory No. 2:

2

If you contend that, between May 24, 2008 and September 11, 2008, you complained to

3

Defendant Spaeth that your pain medications were ineffective, and that Spaeth failed to act, state

4

all facts in support of your contention.

5

Response:

6

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

7

information; it is overly broad; burdensome; compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to

8

the discovery of admissible evidence; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

9

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

10

Interrogatory No. 3:

11

If you contend that, between May 24, 2008 and September 23, 2008, you complained to

12

Defendant Shittu that your pain medications were ineffective, and that Shittu failed to act, state

13

all facts in support of your contention.

14

Response:

15

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

16

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it’s

17

overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

18

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

19

Interrogatory No. 4:

20

If you contend that, between May 11, 2008 and September 11, 2008, you complained to

21

Defendant Araich that your pain medications were ineffective, and that Araich failed to act, state

22

all facts in support of your contention.

23

Response:

24

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seek irrelevant

25

information; it’s overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon the

26

objections and that fact that it’s not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

27

evidence, Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

28

///
5

1

Interrogatory No. 5:

2

If you contend that, between May 24, 2008 and September 11, 2008, you complained to

3

Defendant Chen that your pain medications were ineffective, and that Chen failed to act, state all

4

facts in support of your contention.

5

Response:

6

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seek irrelevant

7

information; it is overly broad; burdensome; compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to

8

the discovery of admissible evidence; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

9

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

10

Interrogatory No. 6:

11

If you contend that, between October 5, 2008 and November 22, 2008, you complained to

12

Defendant Shittu that you needed a lower tier chrono because of your knee-high cast and

13

crutches, and that Shittu failed to act, state all facts in support of your contention.

14

Response:

15

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

16

information; it is overly broad; burdensome; compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to

17

the discovery of admissible evidence; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

18

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

19

Interrogatory No. 7:

20

If you contend that, between October 5, 2008 and November 22, 2008, you complained to

21

Defendant Schaefer that you needed a lower tier chrono because of you knee-high cast and

22

crutches, and that Schaefer failed to act, state all facts in support of your contention.

23

Response:

24

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

25

information; it is overly broad; burdensome; compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to

26

the discovery of admissible evidence; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

27

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

28

///
6

1

Interrogatory No. 8:

2

State all facts surrounding your allegation that you fell down the housing unit stairs on

3

November 22, 2008, as a result of Defendant Shittu’s or Schaefer’s actions between October 5,

4

2008 and November 22, 2008. Include in your response details of how you fell down the stairs,

5

who responded to assist you after you fell down the stairs, and what medical attention, if any,

6

you received as a result of falling down the stairs.

7

Response:

8

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

9

information; it is overly broad; burdensome; compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to

10

the discovery of admissible evidence; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

11

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

12

Interrogatory No. 9:

13

If you contend that you sustained any injuries as a result of Defendants Araich, Chen,

14

Shittu, Lopez, or Spaeth’s actions or conduct between May 1, 2008 and October 06, 2008,

15

identify each injury you sustained. Include in your response the date each alleged injury was

16

sustained.

17

Response:

18

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

19

information; it is overly broad; burdensome; compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to

20

the discovery of admissible evidence; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

21

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

22

Interrogatory No. 10:

23

If you contend that you sustained a permanent injury as a result of Defendants Araich,

24

Chen, Shittu, Lopez, or Spaeth’s actions or conduct between May 1, 2008 and October 06, 2008,

25

identify each permanent injury you sustained. Include in your response the date each alleged

26

injury was sustained.

27

///

28

///
7

1

Response:

2

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

3

information; it is overly broad; burdensome; compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to

4

the discovery of admissible evidence; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

5

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

6

Interrogatory No. 11:

7

If you contend that you sustained any injuries as a result of Defendants Shittu or

8

Schaefer’s conduct between October 5, 2008 and November 22, 2008, identify each injury you

9

sustained. Include in your response the date each alleged injury was sustained.

10

Response:

11

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

12

information; it is overly broad; burdensome; compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to

13

the discovery of admissible evidence; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

14

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

15

Interrogatory No. 12:

16

If you contend that you sustained a permanent injury as a result of Defendants Shittu or

17

Schaefer’s conduct between October 5, 2008 and November 22, 2008, identify each permanent

18

injury you sustained. Include in your response the date each alleged injury was sustained.

19

Response:

20

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

21

information; it is overly broad; burdensome; compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to

22

the discovery of admissible evidence; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

23

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

24

Ruling:

25

Defendants Chen and Araich’s motion to compel further responses to their interrogatories

26

is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants Spaeth and Lopez are no longer defendants in

27

this action. Therefore, Plaintiff will not be compelled to provide further responses to

28

interrogatories that relate only to Defendants Spaeth and Lopez, which the Court has identified
8

1

as Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2. However, Plaintiff will be required to provide further responses

2

to the remaining interrogatories to the extent that they relate to allegations concerning

3

Defendants Shittu, Chen, Araich and Schaefer.

4

Plaintiff’s boilerplate objections lack the specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil

5

Procedure 33(b)(4). Further, the Court finds that Defendants’ interrogatories relate not only to

6

Plaintiff’s contentions in his third amended complaint that Defendants Shittu, Chen, Araich and

7

Schaefer were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs, but also to Plaintiff’s related

8

request for damages. Thus, the requests are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Further, the requests

9

merely require Plaintiff to provide the facts supporting his allegations and are neither overbroad

10

nor burdensome. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be compelled to provide further responses to

11

Interrogatories No. 3-12 insofar as they relate to Defendants Shittu, Chen, Araich and Schaefer.

12

Defendant Shittu’s Interrogatories No. 1-9, and 12-183

13

Interrogatory No. 1:

14

If you response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 1, Set One, is anything other than an

15

unequivocal admissions, state all facts upon which your response is based.

16

Response:

17

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

18

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and

19

based upon these objections, Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

20

Interrogatory No. 2:

21

If your response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 2, Set One, is anything other than an

22

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is based.

23

Response:

24

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

25

information; it is overly broad; burdensome; compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to

26
27
28

3

Defendant Shittu’s interrogatories relate a corresponding Request for Admissions, Set One. Defendant
Shittu’s Request for Admissions is the subject of a separate motion seeking a determination of the sufficiency of
Plaintiff’s responses to those requests. See ECF No. 172.
9

1

the discovery of admissible evidence; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

2

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

3

Interrogatory No. 3:

4

If you response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 3, Set One, is anything other than an

5

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response if based.

6

Response:

7

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

8

information; it is overly broad; burdensome; compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to

9

the discovery of admissible evidence; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

10

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

11

Interrogatory No. 4:

12

If your response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 4, Set One, is anything other than an

13

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is based.

14

Response:

15

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

16

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is

17

overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

18

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

19

Interrogatory No. 5:

20

If your response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 5, Set One, is anything other than an

21

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is based.

22

Response:

23

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

24

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is

25

overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

26

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

27

///

28

///
10

1

Interrogatory No. 6:

2

If your response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 6, Set One, is anything other than an

3

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is based.

4

Response:

5

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

6

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is

7

overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

8

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

9

Interrogatory No. 7:
If your response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 7, Set One, is anything other than an

10
11

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is based.

12

Response:

13

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

14

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is

15

overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

16

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

17

Interrogatory No. 8:

18

If your response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 8, Set One, is anything other than an

19

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is based.

20

Response:

21

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

22

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is

23

overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

24

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

25

Interrogatory No. 9:

26

If your response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 9, Set One, is anything other than an

27

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is based.

28

///
11

1

Response:

2

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

3

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is

4

overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

5

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

6

Interrogatory No. 12:

7

If your response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 12, Set One, is anything other than an

8
9
10

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is based.
Response:
Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

11

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is

12

overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

13

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

14

Interrogatory No. 13:

15

If your response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 13, Set One, is anything other than an

16

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is based.

17

Response:

18

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

19

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is

20

overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

21

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

22

Interrogatory No. 14:

23

If your response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 14, Set One, is anything other than an

24

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is based.

25

Response:

26

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

27

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is

28
12

1

overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

2

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

3

Interrogatory No. 15:

4

If your response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 15, Set One, is anything other than an

5

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is based.

6

Response:

7

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

8

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is

9

overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

10

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

11

Interrogatory No. 16:

12

If your response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 16, Set One, is anything other than an

13

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is based.

14

Response:

15

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

16

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is

17

overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

18

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

19

Interrogatory No. 17:

20

If your response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 17, Set One, is anything other than an

21

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is based.

22

Response:

23

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

24

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is

25

overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

26

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

27

///

28

///
13

1

Interrogatory No. 18:

2

If your response to Shittu’s Request for Admission 18, Set One, is anything other than an

3

unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is based.

4

Response:

5

Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks irrelevant

6

information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is

7

overly broad; burdensome; compound; lacks foundation; and based upon these objections,

8

Responding Party cannot respond to this request.

9
10

Ruling:
Defendant Shittu’s motion to compel further responses to interrogatories Nos. 1-9, 12-18

11

is granted. Plaintiff provides only boilerplate objections without the specificity required by

12

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(4). Defendant Shittu’s interrogatories are tied to the

13

Request for Admissions, the majority of which Plaintiff reported that he could neither admit nor

14

deny. (See ECF No. 172-2, Ex. C to Declaration of Lucas L. Hennes.) A review of the

15

corresponding request for admissions indicates that Defendants seek relevant information

16

regarding Plaintiff’s medical treatment during the relevant time period. Plaintiff’s remaining

17

objections are unavailing, as the interrogatories are not overbroad, burdensome, compound or

18

lacking foundation.

19

III.

20
21

Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents
A.

Standard

A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce

22

and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the

23

following items in the responding party’s possession, custody or control: any designated

24

documents or tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).

25

B.

Discussion

26

On January 25, 2013, Defendants served Plaintiff with a Request for Production of

27

Documents, Set One (“POD”). (ECF No. 173-2, Ex. D.) On February 25, 2013, Plaintiff served

28
14

1

a response to Defendants’ Request for Production, Set One. (Id. at Ex. E.) Defendants now seek

2

further responses to all PODs.

3

POD 1:

4

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

5

evidence, or mention that, between May 24, 2008 and September 11, 2008, you complained to

6

Defendant Lopez that your pain medications were ineffective, and that Lopez failed to act, as

7

alleged in your first amended complaint.

8

Response:

9

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

10

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

11

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after a reasonable and diligent

12

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Lopez and has no

13

responsive documents in his possession.

14

POD 2:

15

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

16

evidence, or mention that, between May 24, 2008 and September 11, 2008, you complained to

17

Defendant Spaeth that your pain medications were ineffective, and that Spaeth failed to act, as

18

alleged in your first amended complaint.

19

Response:

20

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

21

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

22

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after a reasonable and diligent

23

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Spaeth and has no

24

responsive documents in his possession.

25

POD 3:

26

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

27

evidence, or mention that, between May 24, 2008 and September 23, 2008, you complained to

28
15

1

Defendant Shittu that your pain medications were ineffective, and that Shittu failed to act, as

2

alleged in your first amended complaint.

3

Response:

4

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

5

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

6

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after a reasonable and diligent

7

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Shittu and has no

8

responsive documents in his possession.

9
10

POD 4:
All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

11

evidence, or mention that, between May 24, 2008 and September 11, 2008, you complained to

12

Defendant Araich that your pain medications were ineffective, and that Araich failed to act, as

13

alleged in your first amended complaint.

14

Response:

15

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

16

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

17

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after a reasonable and diligent

18

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Araich and has no

19

responsive documents in his possession.

20

POD 5:

21

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

22

evidence, or mention that, between May 24, 2008 and September 11, 2008, you complained to

23

Defendant Chen that your pain medications were ineffective, and that Chen failed to act, as

24

alleged in your second amended complaint.

25

Response:

26

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

27

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

28

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after a reasonable and diligent
16

1

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Chen and has no

2

responsive documents in his possession.

3

POD 6:

4

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

5

evidence, or mention that, between October 5, 2008 and November 22, 2008, you complained to

6

Defendant Shittu that you needed a lower tier chrono because of your knee-high cast and

7

crutches, and that Shittu failed to act, as alleged in your second amended complaint.

8

Response:

9

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad; compound; is

10

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without waiving the

11

objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after a reasonable and diligent search,

12

Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Shittu, and has no responsive

13

documents in his possession.

14

POD 7:

15

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

16

evidence, or mention that, between October 5, 2008 and November 22, 2008, you complained to

17

Defendant Schaefer that you needed a lower tier chrono because of you knee-high cast and

18

crutches, and that Schaefer failed to act, as alleged in your second amended complaint.

19

Response:

20

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

21

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

22

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after a reasonable and diligent

23

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Schaefer, and has no

24

responsive documents in his possession.

25

POD 8:

26

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

27

evidence, or mention the injuries you contend you sustained as a result of Defendant Araich’s

28
17

1

actions or conduct between May 1, 2008 and October 06, 20087, as alleged in your first amended

2

complaint.

3

Response:

4

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

5

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

6

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after a reasonable and diligent

7

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Araich, and has no

8

responsive documents in his possession.

9
10

POD 9:
All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

11

evidence, or mention the injuries you contend you sustained as a result of Defendant Chen’s

12

actions or conduct between May 1, 2008 and October 06, 2008, as alleged in your first amended

13

complaint.

14

Response:

15

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

16

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

17

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after a reasonable and diligent

18

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Chen, and has no

19

responsive documents in his possession.

20

POD 10:

21

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

22

evidence, or mention the injuries you contend you sustained as a result of Defendant Shittu’s

23

actions or conduct between May 1, 2008 and October 06, 2008, as alleged in your first amended

24

complaint.

25

Response:

26

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

27

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

28

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after a reasonable and diligent
18

1

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Shittu, and has no

2

responsive documents in his possession.

3

POD 11:

4

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

5

evidence, or mention the injuries you contend you sustained as a result of Defendant Lopez’s

6

actions or conduct between May 1, 2008 and October 06, 2008, as alleged in your first amended

7

complaint.

8

Response:

9

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

10

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

11

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after reasonably and diligently

12

searching, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Lopez, and has no

13

responsive documents in his possession.

14

POD 12:

15

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

16

evidence, or mention the injuries you contend you sustained as a result of Defendant Spaeth’

17

actions or conduct between May 1, 2008 and October 06, 2008, as alleged in your first amended

18

complaint.

19

Response:

20

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

21

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

22

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after reasonably and diligently

23

searching, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Spaeth, and has no

24

responsive documents in his possession.

25

POD 13:

26

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

27

evidence, or mention that the incision site on your back, relating to your back surgery on May 1,

28

2008, became infected, as alleged in your first amended complaint.
19

1

Response:

2

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

3

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

4

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after reasonable and diligent

5

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from defendants, and has no

6

responsive documents in his possession.

7

POD 14:

8

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

9

evidence, or mention that, between May 11, 2008 and September 23, 2008, you required pain

10

management treatment that was different from the treatment Defendants provided you at that

11

time, as alleged in your first amended complaint.

12

Response:

13

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

14

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

15

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after reasonable and diligent

16

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from defendants, and has no

17

responsive documents in his possession.

18

POD 15:

19

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

20

evidence, or mention that, between October 5, 2008 and November 22, 2008, you required a

21

lower tier assignment for medical reasons, as alleged in your first amended complaint.

22

Response:

23

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

24

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

25

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after reasonable and diligent

26

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from defendants, and has no

27

responsive documents in his possession.

28

///
20

1

POD 16:

2

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

3

evidence, or mention the injuries you contend you sustained as a result of Defendant Shittu’s

4

actions or conduct between October 5, 2007 and November 22, 2008, as alleged in your first

5

amended complaint.

6

Response:

7

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

8

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

9

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after reasonable and diligent

10

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Shittu, and has no

11

responsive documents in his possession.

12

POD 17:

13

All documents (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)) which show

14

evidence, or mention the injuries you contend you sustained as a result of Defendant Schaefer’s

15

actions or conduct between October 5, 2008 and November 22, 2008, as alleged in your first

16

amended complaint.

17

Response:

18

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

19

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

20

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after reasonable and diligent

21

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Schaefer, and has no

22

responsive documents in his possession.

23

POD 18:

24

Any statements, declarations, affidavits, or letters you have obtained from anyone which

25

mention or reference Defendants Araich, Chen, Shittu, Lopez, or Spaeth’s conduct between May

26

1, 2008 and October 06, 2008, as alleged in your first amended complaint.

27

///

28

///
21

1

Response:

2

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

3

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

4

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after reasonable and diligent

5

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from defendants and has no

6

responsive documents in his possession.

7

POD 19:

8

Any statements, declarations, affidavits, or letters you have obtained from anyone which

9
10

mention or reference Defendants Shittu or Schaefer’s conduct between October 5, 2008 and
November 22, 2008, as alleged in your first amended complaint.

11

Response:

12

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

13

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

14

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after reasonable and diligent

15

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Shittu and Schaefer, and

16

has no responsive documents in his possession.

17

POD 20:

18

Any statements, declarations, affidavits, or letters you have obtained from anyone which

19

mention or reference the injuries you contend you sustained as a result of Defendants Araich,

20

Chen, Shittu, Lopez, or Spaeth’s actions or conduct between May 1, 2008 and October 06, 2008,

21

as alleged in your first amended complaint.

22

Response:

23

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

24

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

25

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after reasonable and diligent

26

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from defendants and has no

27

responsive documents in his possession.

28

///
22

1

POD 21:

2

Any statements, declarations, affidavits, or letters you have obtained from anyone which

3

mention or reference the injuries you contend you sustained as a result of Defendants Shittu or

4

Schaefer’s actions or conduct between October 5, 2008 and November 22, 2008, as alleged in

5

your first amended complaint.

6

Response:

7

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad;

8

compound; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; without

9

waiving the objections, Responding Party responds as follows: after reasonable and diligent

10

search, Responding Party has yet to complete discovery requested from Shittu or Schaefer, and

11

has no responsive documents in his possession.

12

Ruling:

13

Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to PODs 1-21 is granted in part and

14

denied in part. Defendants Lopez and Spaeth have been dismissed from this action. Therefore,

15

Plaintiff will not be compelled to provide further responses to PODs relating to these former

16

defendants, which the Court has identified as PODs 1, 2, 11 and 12. However, Plaintiff will be

17

compelled to provide further responses to the remaining PODs 3-10 and 13-21 insofar as they

18

relate to allegations concerning Defendants Shittu, Chen Araich and Schaefer. Although the

19

majority of these discovery requests relate to allegations in Plaintiff’s first and second amended

20

complaints, the underlying allegations are relevant to Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference

21

to medical needs during the time period at issue. Plaintiff will be directed to supplement his

22

responses PODs 3-10 and 13-21 with any responsive documents and he may not simply defer

23

production of responsive documents until after he has received discovery from defendants. To

24

the extent Plaintiff does not have documents responsive to PODs 3-10 and 13-21, Plaintiff

25

should so clearly state in his supplemental response.

26

III.

27

In addition to compelling responses to discovery, Defendants request that this Court issue

28

Defendants’ Request for Sanctions

sanctions—either evidentiary or terminating—based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
23

1

rules of discovery. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), if the Court grants the

2

motion to compel or if the requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed, the Court

3

must require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion to pay the movant’s reasonable

4

expenses incurred in making the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). However, the Court must

5

not order this payment if, among other things, the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or

6

objection was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii), (iii). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s pro se and in forma

8

pauperis status make an award of expenses or terminating sanctions unjust, and Defendants’

9

request for sanctions shall be denied. However, if Plaintiff fails to comply with the Court’s order

10

compelling further responses, Defendants are not precluded from seeking sanctions pursuant to

11

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2).

12

IV.

13

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

14

1. Defendants’ motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part;

15

2. Within thirty (30) days following service of this order, Plaintiff shall serve

16

supplemental responses to (a) Defendants Chen, Araich, and Schaefer’s

17

Interrogatories Nos. 3-12; (b) Defendant Shittu’s Interrogatories Nos. 1-9, and 12-18;

18

and (c) Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents 3-10 and 13-21;

19

3. Defendants’ request for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

20
21

Conclusion and Order

37(a)(5)(A) is denied; and
4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, Defendants are not precluded from seeking

22

appropriate sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2).

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 16, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25