Caesar v. Beard, et al.
Filing
68
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 65 Motion to Compel, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/24/18. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
DANNY CAESAR,
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
12
LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:13-cv-01726-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL
(Doc. 65)
15
I.
16
Plaintiff Danny Caesar is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
Introduction
17
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against
18
Defendants Patel, Lopez, and Nanditha for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs
19
in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendant Patel for retaliation in violation of the
20
First Amendment.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses, filed on March
21
22
19, 2018. (Doc. 65.) On March 21, 2018, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer regarding
23
Plaintiff’s motion, and required a joint statement to be filed within thirty (30) days of that order. (Doc.
24
66.) On April 20, 2018, Defendants timely filed a response to the order. (Doc. 67.) The motion is now
25
deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).1
26
27
28
1
Defense counsel signed the response, but Plaintiff refused to do so, apparently under a misunderstanding that
the Court would not rule on his motion to compel if he signed the response. Nevertheless, it appears Plaintiff
participated in the meet and confer process in good faith.
1
1
II.
Discussion
2
According to the joint statement, the parties resolved most of their disputes, and only one main
3
issue remains, along with two questions that Plaintiff raised. The Court will address these matters in
4
more detail here.
5
A.
6
In Plaintiff’s first set of requests for inspection, Plaintiff sought pictures reflecting locations at
Plaintiff’s First Requests for Inspection
7
Kern Valley State Prison, including the locations of the pill-call line in Buildings A-2 and A-8, a cell
8
where he allegedly slipped, and a picture of a shower. Defendants object because no responsive
9
photographs exist, and they assert that they are not required to create documents in response to a
10
discovery request. Plaintiff asserts that taking the photographs would take minimal effort.
11
The Court understands Plaintiff to be requesting that photographs be taken which do not
12
already exist. Defendants are not obligated to create such photographs in response to Plaintiff’s
13
request for inspection. See Goolsby v. Carrasco, 2011 WL 2636099 at *8–9 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2011)
14
(denying plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents where plaintiff’s request required
15
defendant to “create documents, as opposed to produce already existing documents”). To the extent
16
that Plaintiff requires evidence about the locations where the events at issue took place, he may testify
17
as to those facts, he may question other witnesses, he may create his own drawings, or he may request
18
that Defendants stipulate to facts.
Accordingly, the motion to compel these requests are denied. Defendants are further warned
19
20
that if they create any responsive documents or photographs for use at trial, they must be produced to
21
Plaintiff for inspection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1).
22
B.
Other Issues
23
During the meet and confer, Plaintiff raised a couple of other issues to address. First, he stated
24
that he required responses from Defendant Patel to his Interrogatories, Set One to conduct certain
25
other discovery. Defense counsel asserts that the preparation of the responses was delayed due to out
26
of town travel by Defendant Patel, but are in progress. Plaintiff also expressed some concern about the
27
upcoming discovery deadline of May 22, 2018.
28
///
2
1
Plaintiff has not filed any request to extend the discovery deadline, and the Court does not have
2
sufficient information here to determine whether Plaintiff has good cause for any such extension based
3
on a delay in receiving responses to his Interrogatories, Set One, from Defendant Patel. The Court
4
would need to know specifically what discovery still needs to be done and why, and information as to
5
Plaintiff’s efforts to be diligent here. As was explained in the September 22, 2017 Discovery and
6
Scheduling Order, any request to extend a deadline must be filed on or before the expiration of that
7
deadline, and must be supported by a showing of good cause. (Doc. 55 ¶ 10.)
8
9
10
11
Plaintiff also told defense counsel that he wants Defendants to obtain his dental records from
the county jail where he was previously housed. Defense counsel informed Plaintiff that he can request
his own records.
Plaintiff is informed that he may not use discovery to obtain free copies of documents that
12
equally available to him, but must obtain them himself through the proper channels. See Jones v.
13
Lundy, 1:03–cv–05980–AWI–LJO-PC, 2007 WL 214580, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2007) (a plaintiff’s
14
medical file and health records are equally available to him, and he must request to review and copy
15
the files himself).
16
III.
17
For the reasons explained, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel
18
Conclusion and Order
discovery responses, filed on March 19, 2018 (Doc. 65) is denied.
19
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
April 24, 2018
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?