Fields v. Masiel et al

Filing 64

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 61 Motion for an Order Directing CDCR/CSP-Corcoran Medical Records Office to Provide Plaintiff with a Copy of His Medical Records Material to This Action; ORDER Granting In Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 60 Motion to Compel Further Responses, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/4/14. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN E. FIELDS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
JOSE MASIEL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

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

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01699-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
AN ORDER DIRECTING CDCR/CSPCORCORAN MEDICAL RECORDS OFFICE TO
PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH A COPY OF HIS
MEDICAL RECORDS MATERIAL TO THIS
ACTION (ECF No. 61)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES (ECF No. 60)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

20
21

I.

Background

22

Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

23

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against

24

Defendants Masiel, Aguirre and Hernandez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

25

On July 26, 2013, Defendants Masiel, Aguirre and Hernandez served their first set of requests

26

for production of documents and requests for admissions; and Defendants Aguirre and Masiel served

27

their first sets of interrogatories. On November 5, 2013, Plaintiff served responses to Defendants’

28

discovery requests.
1

1

On December 2, 2013, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel further responses to the

2

discovery propounded on Plaintiff. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition to the

3

motion. Instead, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order directing CDCR/CSP-Corcoran Medical Records

4

Office to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his medical records and asking the Court to defer ruling on

5

Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to discovery. (ECF No. 61.) Defendants opposed

6

Plaintiff’s motion on January 15, 2014. (ECF No. 62.) The motions are deemed submitted. Local

7

Rule 230(l).

8
9
10

II.

Motion for an Order Directing CDCR/CSP-Corcoran Medical Records to Provide
Plaintiff with a Copy of his Medical Records

By the instant motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court direct the CDCR/CSP-Corcoran

11

Medical Records Office to provide him with a copy of his medical records material to this action.

12

Plaintiff acknowledges receipt of Defendants’ July 2013 discovery requests, but claims that he cannot

13

respond without first receiving copies of his medical records. Plaintiff reports that he sent several

14

requests for copies of documents responsive to Defendants’ discovery requests, but the CDCR/CSP-

15

Corcoran Medical Records Office failed or refused to honor his requests. (ECF No. 61.) Plaintiff asks

16

the Court to intervene and to defer ruling on Defendants’ pending motion to compel further responses

17

to discovery. (ECF No. 61.)

18

Defendants oppose the motion on several grounds. First, Defendants note that they served

19

their discovery requests on July 26, 2013, and Plaintiff had sufficient time to request the records and

20

provide complete responses to the discovery requests. Second, Defendants indicate that under prison

21

policies and procedures (Department Operations Manual, Art. 52, §§ 54090.1-54090.4.4), Plaintiff is

22

permitted to inspect and review his medical file upon request. However, Plaintiff has not presented

23

any evidence to show that he properly requested and had been denied access to his medical file. As a

24

final matter, Defendants contend that CSP-Corcoran is not a party to this lawsuit and therefore cannot

25

be compelled to comply.

26

Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied. First, Plaintiff has not provide evidence or a declaration

27

signed under penalty of perjury indicating that he properly requested access to his medical files and

28

was thereafter denied. (ECF No. 61, p. 2.) Second, Plaintiff has not explained why he waited nearly
2

1

six months, until January 2014, to seek Court intervention after admitting to being served with

2

Defendants’ discovery requests in July 2013. Indeed, Plaintiff neither offers reasons for his delay nor

3

states why he did not seek an extension of the relevant discovery deadline in order to provide a timely

4

response. Third, and finally, the Court cannot order CDCR/CSP-Corcoran to provide Plaintiff with his

5

medical records. As pointed out by Defendants, CDCR/CSP-Corcoran is not a party to this action and

6

the Court is unable to issue an order against non-parties to the pending action. See Zenith Radio Corp.

7

v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112, 89 S.Ct. 1562, 23 L.Ed.2d 129 (1969).

8

III.

Motion to Compel Further Responses

9

On July 26, 2013, Defendants Masiel, Aguirre and Hernandez served their first set of requests

10

for production of documents and requests for admissions; and Defendants Aguirre and Masiel served

11

their first sets of interrogatories. Pursuant to the Discovery and Scheduling Order issued on January

12

23, 2013, Plaintiff’s responses to all sets of discovery were due on or before September 9, 2013.

13

However, Plaintiff did not submit responses to Defendants’ discovery requests until November 5,

14

2013. Defendants now seek to compel further responses to their discovery requests.

15

1. Requests for Admissions

16

Defendants contend that the Requests for Admission served on Plaintiff should all be deemed

17

admitted due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide a timely response. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36

18

provides that the failure to timely respond to requests for admissions will result in the matter being

19

deemed admitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3); O’Bryant v. Allstate Ins. Co., 107 F.R.D. 45, 48 (D.

20

Conn. 1985). No motion is necessary because Rule 36(a) is self-executing. Id.

21

Here, Defendants served their request for admissions on July 26, 2013, and Plaintiff’s response

22

was due on September 9, 2013. Plaintiff did not serve a response to the Requests for Admission until

23

November 5, 2013. (ECF No. 60-2, Exhibit A.)

24

If a party wishes to withdraw an admission, that party is required to file a motion. Fed. R. Civ.

25

P. 36(b). However, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s late

26

submission of his responses to the requests for admission as a motion to withdraw the prior

27

admissions. Plaintiff clearly intended to submit responses to the Requests for Admission, albeit late.

28
3

1

Rule 36(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

2

A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion,
permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended. Subject to Rule 16(e), the court may
permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the
action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in
maintaining or defending the action on the merits. An admission under this rule is not an
admission for any other purpose and cannot be used against the party in any other
proceeding.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).
If upholding the admission would eliminate presentation of the merits of the action, then
allowing withdrawal of the admission would promote the presentation of the merits and satisfy the

10

first prong of the test. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); see Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th

11

Cir.2007) (citing Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir.1995)). The Court finds that

12

withdrawal of the admissions would promote presentation of the merits of this action as specific

13

admissions relate directly to questions at issue in this action, including whether Plaintiff sustained any

14

injuries as result of Defendants’ actions.

15

If the party relying on the admission would be prejudiced such that the party could not

16

maintain or defend the action on its merits, then the motion to withdraw the admission cannot be

17

granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). The second prong inquiry should focus on the prejudice that the non-

18

moving party would face at trial. Conlon, 474 at 623. In this instance, the Court finds that Defendants

19

would not be prejudiced in defending this action on the merits if the admissions are withdrawn. This

20

matter has not proceeded to trial, and no dispositive motions have been decided. Accordingly,

21

Defendants’ motion to compel regarding the requests for admissions shall be denied.

22

2. Interrogatories

23

Defendants move to compel further responses to the following interrogatories: (1) Defendant

24

Aguirre’s Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatory 2; and (2) Defendant Masiel’s Interrogatories, Set

25

One, Interrogatories 1-3, 7-8, 16- 22.

26

An interrogatory is a written question propounded by one party to another who must answer

27

under oath and in writing. Interrogatories are limited to anything within the permissible scope of

28

discovery, namely, any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Fed. R.
4

1

Civ. P. 33, 26(b)(1). The responding party is to answer each interrogatory fully, to the extent that it is

2

not objected to, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objection must be stated with specificity, Fed. R.

3

Civ. P. 33(b)(4). Generally, the responding party does not need to conduct extensive research in

4

answering the interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made. Evans v. Tilton, 2010

5

WL 1136216, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010).

6

Defendant Aguirre’s Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatory No. 2

7

Interrogatory No 2: If your response to Defendants’ Request for Admission 2, Set One, is
anything other than an unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which your response is
based.

8
9

Response: Document(s) responsive to this interrogatory are attached as exhibit 1.

10
Discussion: Defendants explain that request for admission number 2 requested that Plaintiff
11
12
13
14

“[a]dmit that on November 9, 2007, you were serving a twenty-five-years to life prison sentence for a
2000 felony conviction.” Defendants assert that Plaintiff denied the request for admission and failed
to assert facts to support his denial in response the interrogatory. Based on Plaintiff’s failure to state
any facts to support his denial of the admission, Defendants’ motion to compel a further response is

15
GRANTED.
16

Defendant Masiel’s Interrogatories, Set One

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Interrogatory No. 1: If you contend that Defendant Masiel retaliated against you on
November 9, 2007 because of previous “602” prison grievances you submitted, as stated in
your complaint at paragraph 28, state all facts in support of your contention (including
identifying the log number, date of submission, to whom the grievance was submitted and by
what method, subject matter of the grievance and individual you complained about, and the
disposition of the grievance as to each grievance you contend caused Masiel to retaliate against
you).
Response: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it calls for Plaintiff to guess
whom the grievance was submitted and by what method. Without waiving said objections
Plaintiff submits Attachment(s) 1 through .

24
25
26
27
28

Interrogatory No. 2: If you contend that Defendant Aguirre retaliated against you on
November 9, 2007 because of previous “602” prison grievances you submitted, as stated in
your complaint at paragraph 28, state all facts in support of your contention (including
identifying the log number, date of submission, to whom the grievance was submitted and by
what method, subject matter of the grievance and individual you complained about, and the
disposition of the grievance as to each grievance you contend caused Aguirre to retaliate
against you).
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Response: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it calls for Plaintiff to guess
whom the grievance was submitted and by what method. Without waiving said objections
Plaintiff submits Attachment(s) through .
Interrogatory No. 3: If you contend that Defendant Jung-Hernandez retaliated against you on
November 9, 2007 because of previous “602” prison grievances you submitted, as stated in
your complaint at paragraph 28, state all facts in support of your contention (including
identifying the log number, date of submission, to whom the grievance was submitted and by
what method, subject matter of the grievance and individual you complained about, and the
disposition of the grievance as to each grievance you contend caused Jung-Hernandez to
retaliate against you).

8

10

Response: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it calls for Plaintiff to guess
whom the grievance was submitted and by what method. Without waiving said objections
Plaintiff submits attachment(s) through .

11

Discussion: Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories 1 through 3 are incomplete because

12

Plaintiff did not identify any attachments and did not identify all the facts that support his contentions.

13

Further, Plaintiff’s objections are improper because he is the only person that would be able to attest to

14

how and to whom he submitted his 602 grievances. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel

15

further responses to interrogatories 1 through 3 is GRANTED.

9

16
17
18
19
20
21

Interrogatory No. 7: State all facts in support of your contention that Defendant Masiel
knew about your accommodation chrono, as alleged in your complaint at paragraph 12.
Response: Defendant Masiel was responsible for making entries in Plaintiff’s CDCR 114
folder on a daily basis. Thus, read the documents in it. Including but not limited to my
accommodation chronos.
Interrogatory No. 8: State all facts in support of your contention that Defendant Aguirre
knew about your accommodation chrono, as alleged in your complaint at paragraph 12.

23

Response: Defendant Aguirre was responsible for making entries in Plaintiff’s CDCR 114
folder on a daily basis. Thus, read the documents in it. Including but not limited to my
accommodation chronos.

24

Discussion: Plaintiff did not state facts in response to Interrogatories 7 and 8. At best,

25

Plaintiff’s response is speculation regarding whether or not Defendants Masiel and Aguirre reviewed

26

his CDCR 114 folder and whether or not his CDCR 114 folder contained any chromos. Accordingly,

27

Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to interrogatories 7 and 8 is GRANTED.

22

28
6

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

Interrogatory No. 16: If you contend that you sustained an actual injury as a direct result of
Masiel’s alleged actions on November 9, 2007, identify each injury you sustained. Include in
your response what medical attention, if any, you required, requested, and received as a result
of your ‘unnecessary recurring/persistent physical pain.’
Response: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is compound and seeks
information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving
said objections Plaintiff responds as follows. Plaintiff is waiting for CSP-Corcoran medical
records office to provide medical records responsive to this interrogatory. As soon as such
information is relinquished to me I will serve a supplemental response to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 17: If you contend that you sustained an actual injury as a direct result of
Aguirre’s alleged actions on November 9, 2007, identify each injury you sustained. Include in
your response what medical attention, if any, you required, requested, and received as a result
of your ‘unnecessary recurring/persistent physical pain.’
Response: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is compound and seeks
information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving
said objections Plaintiff responds as follows. Plaintiff is waiting for CSP-Corcoran medical
records office to provide medical records responsive to this interrogatory. As soon as such
information is relinquished to me I will serve a supplemental response to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 18: If you contend that you sustained an actual injury as a direct result of
Jung-Hernandez’ alleged actions on November 9, 2007, identify each injury you sustained.
Include in your response what medical attention, if any, you required, requested, and received
as a result of your ‘unnecessary recurring/persistent physical pain.’
Response: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is compound and seeks
information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving
said objections Plaintiff responds as follows. Plaintiff is waiting for CSP-Corcoran medical
records office to provide medical records responsive to this interrogatory. As soon as such
information is relinquished to me I will serve a supplemental response to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 19: State all facts surrounding your allegation that you suffered
“unnecessary recurring/persistent mental and emotional pain” as a direct result of Masiel’s
alleged actions on November 9, 2007. Include in your response what medical attention, if any,
you required, requested, and received as a result of your ‘mental and emotional pain.’
Response: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is compound and seeks
information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving
said objections Plaintiff responds as follows. Plaintiff is wait[ing] for CSP-Corcoran medical
records office to provide medical records responsive to this interrogatory. As soon as such
information is relinquished to me I will serve a supplemental response to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 20: State all facts surrounding your allegation that you suffered
“unnecessary recurring/persistent mental and emotional pain” as a direct result of Aguirre’s

28
7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

alleged actions on November 9, 2007. Include in your response what medical attention, if any,
you required, requested, and received as a result of your ‘mental and emotional pain.’
Response: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is compound and seeks
information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving
said objections Plaintiff responds as follows. Plaintiff is waiting for CSP-Corcoran medical
records office to provide medical records responsive to this interrogatory. As soon as such
information is relinquished to me I will serve a supplemental response to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 21: State all facts surrounding your allegation that you suffered
“unnecessary recurring/persistent mental and emotional pain” as a direct result of JungHernandez’ alleged actions on November 9, 2007. Include in your response what medical
attention, if any, you required, requested, and received as a result of your ‘mental and
emotional pain.’
Response: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is compound and seeks
information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving
said objections Plaintiff responds as follows. Plaintiff is waiting for CSP-Corcoran medical
records office to provide medical records responsive to this interrogatory. As soon as such
information is relinquished to me I will serve a supplemental response to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 22: Identify all health care providers that you contend informed you or
concluded that your ‘unnecessary recurring/persistent physical/mental and emotional pain’ was
caused by Defendants’ actions on November 9, 2007.

15

18

Response: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is compound and seeks
information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving
said objections Plaintiff responds as follows. Plaintiff is waiting for CSP-Corcoran medical
records office to provide medical records responsive to this interrogatory. As soon as such
information is relinquished to me I will serve a supplemental response to this interrogatory.

19

Discussion: Defendants’ contend that Plaintiff’s responses to these interrogatories are

20

incomplete and evasive. Defendants fault Plaintiff for failing to obtain documents in the four months

21

between service of the interrogatories and Plaintiff’s response. Defendants also note that Plaintiff

22

failed to verify his responses under oath.

16
17

23

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections to the interrogatories are unsupported. The requests

24

are not compound as they each relate to a single contention. Further, the interrogatories seek

25

information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of mental and emotional pain suffered as a direct result of

26

Defendants’ actions. Fed. R. Evid. 401(a). The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s response is

27

incomplete because it does not provide any facts responsive to the interrogatories. Plaintiff’s

28

purported inability to obtain documents does not relieve him of his obligation to answer each
8

1

interrogatory “separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). Accordingly,

2

Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to interrogatories 16 through 22 is GRANTED.

3

3. Requests for Production of Documents

4

In responding to requests for production, Plaintiff must produce documents or other tangible

5

things which are in his “possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Responses must either

6

state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the

7

request, including the reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B).

8

Actual possession, custody or control is not required. “A party may be ordered to produce a

9

document in the possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document

10

or has control over the entity [that] is in possession of the document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162

11

F.R.D. 603, 619 (N.D. Cal.1995); see also Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309945, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan.

12

30, 2007) (“Property is deemed within a party’s possession, custody, or control if the party has actual

13

possession, custody, or control thereof or the legal right to obtain the property on demand.”).

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Request for Production No. 4: All documentation (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 34(a)(1)) of the medical attention you received as a result of your ‘unnecessary
recurring/persistent physical pain’ that you identify in your response to Defendant Masiel’s
Interrogatory 16.
Response: Plaintiff objects to this request for production on the basis that it seeks document(s)
which are equally available to Defendant. Without waiving said objections Plaintiff responds
as follows. I am waiting for the CSP-Corcoran medical records office to provide me with
medical records responsive to this request for production. As soon as such documents are
relinquished to me I will serve a supplemental response to this request for production.
Request for Production No. 5: All documentation (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 34(a)(1)) of the medical attention you received as a result of your ‘unnecessary
recurring/persistent physical pain’ that you identify in your response to Defendant Masiel’s
Interrogatory 17.
Response: Plaintiff objects to this request for production on the basis that it seeks document(s)
which are equally available to Defendant. Without waiving said objections Plaintiff responds
as follows. I am waiting for the CSP-Corcoran medical records office to provide me with
medical records responsive to this request for production. As soon as such documents are
relinquished to me I will serve a supplemental response to this request for production.
Request for Production No. 6: All documentation (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 34(a)(1)) of the medical attention you received as a result of your ‘unnecessary

28
9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

recurring/persistent physical pain’ that you identify in your response to Defendant Masiel’s
Interrogatory 18.
Response: Plaintiff objects to this request for production on the basis that it seeks document(s)
which are equally available to Defendant. Without waiving said objections Plaintiff responds
as follows. I am waiting for the CSP-Corcoran medical records office to provide me with
medical records responsive to this request for production. As soon as such documents are
relinquished to me I will serve a supplemental response to this request for production.
Request for Production No. 7: All documentation (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 34(a)(1)) of the medical attention you received as a result of your ‘mental and
emotional pain’ that you identify in your response to Defendant Masiel’s Interrogatory 19.

8
9
10
11
12
13

Response: Plaintiff objects to this request for production on the basis that it seeks document(s)
which are equally available to Defendant. Without waiving said objections Plaintiff responds
as follows. I am waiting for the CSP-Corcoran medical records office to provide me with
medical records responsive to this request for production. As soon as such documents are
relinquished to me I will serve a supplemental response to this request for production.
Request for Production No. 8: All documentation (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 34(a)(1)) of the medical attention you received as a result of your ‘mental and
emotional pain’ that you identify in your response to Defendant Masiel’s Interrogatory 20.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Response: Plaintiff objects to this request for production on the basis that it seeks document(s)
which are equally available to Defendant. Without waiving said objections Plaintiff responds
as follows. I am waiting for the CSP-Corcoran medical records office to provide me with
medical records responsive to this request for production. As soon as such documents are
relinquished to me I will serve a supplemental response to this request for production.
Request for Production No. 9: All documentation (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 34(a)(1)) of the medical attention you received as a result of your ‘mental and
emotional pain’ that you identify in your response to Defendant Masiel’s Interrogatory 21.
Response: Plaintiff objects to this request for production on the basis that it seeks document(s)
which are equally available to Defendant. Without waiving said objections Plaintiff responds
as follows. I am waiting for the CSP-Corcoran medical records office to provide me with
medical records responsive to this request for production. As soon as such documents are
relinquished to me I will serve a supplemental response to this request for production.
Request for Production No. 10: The comprehensive accommodation chrono authorizing you
to have two extra pillows, as you contend in your complaint at paragraph 12.
Response: Plaintiff objects to this request for production on the basis that it seeks document(s)
which are equally available to Defendant. Without waiving said objections Plaintiff responds
as follows. I am waiting for the CSP-Corcoran medical records office to provide me with
medical records responsive to this request for production. As soon as such documents are
relinquished to me I will serve a supplemental response to this request for production.

28
10

1

Discussion: There is no indication that Plaintiff’s medical records are equally available to the

2

individual defendants in this action. The CDCR is not a party to this litigation. Further, as discussed

3

above, Plaintiff has had more than four months to produce the requested documents. Accordingly,

4

Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to requests for production 4 through 10 is

5

GRANTED.

6

IV.

Conclusion and Order

7

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

8

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing CDCR/CSP-Corcoran Medical Records Office to
provide Plaintiff with a copy of his medical records material to this action and for an order

9

deferring any ruling on the pending motion to compel is DENIED;

10

2. Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to discovery, filed on December 2, 2013,

11

is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

12
13

a. Defendants’ motion to compel regarding their Requests for Admission is DENIED;

14

b. Defendants’ motion to compel a further response to Defendant Aguirre’s
Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatory No. 2, is GRANTED;

15

c. Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to Defendant Masiel’s

16

Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatories Nos. 1-3, 7-8, and 16-22, is GRANTED.

17

d. Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to Defendants’ Request for

18
19

Production of Documents, Set One, Requests for Production Nos. 4-10, is

20

GRANTED;
3. Plaintiff shall serve supplemental responses as directed above within thirty (30) days of the

21

date of this order;

22

4. If Plaintiff has not yet obtained his medical records from the prison medical records office,

23
24

then Plaintiff should utilize the available prison procedures to access his medical records

25

and obtain copies; and

26

///

27

///

28

///
11

1

5. The parties are reminded of their continuing obligation to timely supplement their
discovery responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

2
3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

February 4, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12