(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)

Download PDF
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

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?