(PC) Gosztyla v. Gu et al

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING 34 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/7/2024. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Case No. 1:22-cv-00610-NODJ-EPG (PC)

CHANTELL GOSZTYLA,

11
12
13
14
15

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff,
v.

(ECF No. 34)

WEI GU,
Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Chantell Gosztyla is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel, asking the Court to “order CCWF1 to promptly produce Plaintiff’s C-file2 to the
Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff states that this motion is necessary because she “must view
her c-file in order to fulfill part a, b, and c of November 17th, 2023’s Court order.” (Id.)
Because Plaintiff does not have a court obligation to view her c-file and because
Defendants have agreed to provide Plaintiff with the medical documents in her c-file by
February 15, 2024, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.
On November 17, 2023, the Court issued two orders, one setting a schedule in this case
through filing of the dispositive motions (ECF No. 27) (hereinafter, “Scheduling Order”), the

1
2

Central California Women Facility.
Central file.

1

1

other requiring parties to exchange certain documents within sixty days (ECF No. 26)

2

(hereinafter, “Discovery Order”). Categories of documents listed in parts a, b, and c of the

3

Discovery Order include the following:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

a. Documents regarding exhaustion of Plaintiff’s claims, including
602s, Form 22s, and responses from the appeals office.
b. Witness statements, reports, and other evidence that were
generated from investigation(s) related to the event(s) at issue in
the complaint, such as an investigation stemming from the
processing of Plaintiff’s grievance(s).
c. All of Plaintiff’s medical records related to the incident(s) and/or
condition(s) at issue in the case, including those held by Central
California Women’s Facility and California Correctional Health
Care Services.
(ECF No. 26 at 2).
Plaintiff then requested additional 60 days to respond to the Court’s orders, stating in

13

relevant part that she was having difficulties accessing her medical records. (ECF No. 29). The

14

Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension in part, allowing parties until February 15, 2024

15

to exchange the documents listed in the Discovery Order. (ECF No. 30 at 2). The Court also

16

ordered Defendant “to respond within 14 days indicating whether they have obtained Plaintiff’s

17

medical records from Plaintiff’s institution of confinement as ordered by the Court and whether

18

they have or intend to provide those records to Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 30 at 3).

19

In response, counsel for Defendant filed a declaration stating that counsel they

20

communicated to Plaintiff that they “will be producing all medical records and relevant, non-

21

privileged institutional documents set forth in the Court’s November 17, 2023 order. Based on

22

this representation and the Court’s November 17 order, I intend to produce the entirety of

23

Plaintiff’s medical records in Defendant’s possession, custody or control by February 15,

24

2024—the new deadline to exchange documents.” (ECF No. 31 at 2). Accordingly, the Court

25

issued a minute order (ECF No. 32), holding that it would take no further action on Plaintiff’s

26

motion (ECF No. 29).

27
28
2

1

Although Plaintiff appears to be having difficulties obtaining her central file, the Court

2

will deny the motion because Defendants have already agreed to provide Plaintiff with

3

documents in that file that are relevant to the case, including Plaintiff’s medical records.

4

As Plaintiff has been repeatedly informed, Plaintiff is not required to produce

5

documents that are outside of her “possession, custody, or control.” (ECF No. 26 at 2; ECF No.

6

30 at 2). Plaintiff has also been repeatedly informed that she does not have to produce the

7

information contained in her central file to the Defendant. (ECF No. 26 at 3; ECF No. 30 at 3;

8

ECF No. 31 at 2). Plaintiff does not need the documents she lists in her motion to “fulfill” the

9

Court’s Discovery Order.

10

Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel at this time. However, after

11

Plaintiff receives documents from Defendant, which are due by February 15, 2024, if Plaintiff

12

still believes she needs access to her c-file, Plaintiff may file another motion requesting access

13

to specific documents from her c-file. Plaintiff should describe what documents she believes

14

she needs and whether Defendant have already provided those documents to her.

15
16

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 34) is
DENIED without prejudice.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 7, 2024

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3