Cranford v. Badagon

Filing 58

ORDER Denying 45 57 Motions to Compel Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 04/18/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ANGELA BADAGON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )
)
CONSOLIDATED ACTION
)
)
ARCHIE CRANFORD,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY
(ECF No. 45, 57)

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

19
20

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00736 -LJO-BAM

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed the
instant motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 45.) On April 4, 2014, the Court directed Defendants
to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 49.) In compliance with the Court’s
order, Defendants filed a response on April 7, 2014. (ECF No. 51.) On April 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed
a document entitled “Compliance to Descovery of Spechal of Spechal Documents and Motion of
Inquest.” (ECF No. 57) (reproduced as written). Although styled as a motion, the document appears
to be a reply to Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. The Court therefore construes
the document as Plaintiff’s reply and the motion to compel is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
///
1

1

I.

Motion to Compel

2

In February 2014, Plaintiff served Defendants with a request for production of documents.

3

(ECF No. 45, p. 1; ECF No. 51, Ex. B.) Defendants served objections to the request for production of

4

documents on March 5, 2014. (ECF No. 51, Ex. B.) Plaintiff now claims that he has not received the

5

requested documents.
A. Requests for Production of Documents

6
7

Rule 37 provides that a motion to compel may be filed when a party fails to produce

8

documents. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B). In responding to requests for production, Defendants must

9

produce documents or other tangible things which are in their “possession, custody, or control.” Fed.

10

R. Civ. P. 34(a). Responses must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as

11

requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B).
B. Discussion

12
13

Plaintiff contends that he did not receive a complete copy of his requested health records.

14

Plaintiff also contends that he did not receive requested documents that include (1) all photographs of

15

all bruises Plaintiff sustained as a result of being assaulted by previous staff members in their position

16

of authority; (2) the report taken by Nurse Johnny Lopez the day after the assaults took place and

17

Plaintiff showed him the bruise; and (3) all patients’ rights complaints filed from May 20, 2013, to

18

March 5, 2014, regarding the improper treatment and care of Plaintiff and other patients assigned to

19

Unit 1 of Coalinga State Hospital.

20

Defendants counter that Plaintiff has been provided an exact copy of the health record that

21

Coalinga State Hospital provided to Defendants. (ECF No. 51, Ex. A.) Defendants also counter that

22

the requests set forth in Plaintiff’s motion are different from the Request for Production of Documents

23

served on Defendants. (ECF No. 51, Ex. B.)

24

Plaintiff did not provide the Court with a copy of the requests at issue. However, the Request

25

for Production of Documents submitted by Defendants includes the following three requests from

26

Plaintiff:

27
28

(1)
all patients complaints filed on or before November 29th 2013 untill Febury 6th
2014.
2

1
2
3
4

(2)
all assalts by colinga state hospital employees on or befor may 20th 2013 at 3:00
pm until febury 11.2014
(3)
All verbal abuse on a patient by a colinga state hospital produced and pervaded by
NOD ordered by physchioulagust (DOCTOR) on and be fore Janurry 31st 2014 unitill
Febury 11th 2014

5
6
7

(ECF No. 51, Ex. B, pp. 8-9.) (reproduced as written).
With respect to Request No. 1 regarding patient complaints, Defendants objected to production

8

on the grounds that these documents were equally available to Plaintiff or that they were contained in

9

the health records already provided to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 51, Ex. B.) With respect to Requests Nos.

10

2 and 3, Defendants objected to their production on the grounds that the requests were vague and

11

unintelligible and Defendants were unable to provide a response. (ECF No. 51, Ex. B.)

12

Having considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, Defendants’ opposition and Plaintiff’s reply, the

13

Court does not find any basis to compel further responses to discovery. Plaintiff has received copies

14

of all health records obtained by Defendants, which appear to include legal information and social

15

history. (ECF No. 51, Ex. A, p. 5.) To the extent Plaintiff seeks his own complaints and documents

16

contained in his records, Defendants objected that those records are equally available to Plaintiff or are

17

included in the medical records already provided. Defendants’ objection is sustained and Plaintiff’s

18

motion to compel a further response is denied.

19

With regard to Plaintiff’s remaining requests, Plaintiff’s motion to compel does not appear to

20

correspond with the requests served on Defendants. In particular, Plaintiff has not requested

21

photographs, staff reports or patients’ rights complaints filed from May 20, 2013 to March 5, 2014,

22

regarding the improper treatment and care of Plaintiff and other patients assigned to Unit 1 of

23

Coalinga State Hospital. However, to the extent these items are specific to Plaintiff and contained in

24

his records at Coalinga State Hospital, these records are equally available to Plaintiff. Although

25

Plaintiff complains that he is unable to possess photos because the chemicals used to mount the photos

26

poses a serious risk to the safety and security of the institution, there is no indication that he cannot

27

obtain color photocopies printed on regular paper. Plaintiff does not state whether he requested or

28
3

1

received such copies. If Plaintiff is unable to obtain such copies, and to the extent such photographs

2

are available, Plaintiff may renew his request to compel their production.

3

Plaintiff also complains that the report prepared by Nurse Lopez is missing from his medical

4

records. However, Defendants cannot be compelled to produce documents that are unavailable.

5

Defendants have indicated that Plaintiff has been provided with copies of all documents that

6

Defendants received from Coalinga State Hospital. Based on this representation, Defendants have

7

produced all documents in their custody and control obtained from Plaintiff’s medical file.

8
9

Plaintiff reports that there also are records from the “out of the hospital nurve [sic] doctor that
pays visits and treats patients from time to time.” (ECF No. 57, p. 1.) It is not clear whether such

10

records are contained in Plaintiff’s medical file at Coalinga State Hospital or are in the custody of the

11

third-party doctor. If these records are maintained in Plaintiff’s medical file, then these records are

12

equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent that these records are in the possession of the nerve doctor,

13

Plaintiff is not precluded from seeking a subpoena duces tecum to obtain documents in the possession

14

of a third party. Such documents would not be in the “possession, custody or control” of Defendants.

15

The Court finds that Defendants’ remaining objections to the Request for Production of

16

Documents should be sustained. Requests Nos. 2 and 3 are unclear and unintelligible, making it

17

impossible for Defendants to provide a substantive response. There is no indication that Plaintiff

18

made any effort to clarify his requests after Defendants served their objections on March 5, 2014.

19

II.

20

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery, filed on March 6, 2014,

21

Conclusion and Order

is HEREBY DENIED.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 18, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
4