(PC) Ribot v. Smith, et al.

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 1/7/2021 DENYING 27 Motion to Compel. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HUGO RIBOT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:19-CV-1361-JAM-DMC-P

v.

ORDER

CHRISTOPHER SMITH, M.D., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to produce

19

medical records. ECF No. 27.
Plaintiff specifically seeks an order compelling Defendants to disclose his prison

20
21

medical record, including all of Plaintiff’s grievances concerning his attempts to receive medical

22

attention for the eye condition that is the subject of his complaint. Id. at 2; see ECF No. 1 at 3.

23

Plaintiff does not contend that he served any written discovery request for the medical records

24

upon Defendants or that Defendants failed to comply with any written discovery requests. ECF

25

No. 27. The Court’s scheduling order permitted the parties to conduct discovery until October 4,

26

2020. ECF No. 23 at 2. Plaintiff submitted his motion to compel on October 11, 2020. ECF No.

27

27 at 2. Defendants have not filed any opposition.

28

///
1

1

The purpose of discovery is to "remove surprise from trial preparation so the

2

parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute." United States v.

3

Chapman Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). Rule

4

26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers guidance on the scope of discovery

5

permitted:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged information that
is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of
the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information,
the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery
need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

6
7
8
9
10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

11

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "a party seeking discovery

12

may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection." Fed. R.

13

Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an "evasive or

14

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). "District courts have 'broad

15

discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil

16

Procedure 16.'" Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v.

17

Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)).

18

The party moving to compel bears the burden of informing the Court (1) which

19

discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are

20

disputed, (3) why the party believes the response is deficient, (4) why any objections are not

21

justified, and (5) why the information sought through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of

22

this action. McCoy v. Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv-1808-MJS (PC), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75435, 2016

23

WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-5646-AWI-SMS PC,

24

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24418, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008).

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

Plaintiff has not met the burden of showing that an order compelling discovery is

2

required. Plaintiff does not contend that he ever served discovery requests upon Defendants, let

3

alone that Defendants have incompletely responded or otherwise been evasive during discovery.

4

See ECF No. 27 at 1–2. Without additional information as to why Defendant’s responses or

5

productions are deficient, the Court finds that an order compelling discovery is unwarranted.

6

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2021
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3