(PC) Martin v. Fox et al

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/13/2020 GRANTING plaintiff's 28 motion to compel, with respect for production no. 1. Defendants shall provide plaintiff with a further response to this request, as discussed herein, within 30 days of the date of this order. Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED in all other respects. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

O.Z. MARTIN,

12
13
14

No. 2: 19-cv-2075 TLN KJN P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

ROBERT FOX, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to

19

requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and interrogatories. (ECF No. 28.)

20

For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.

21

Background

22

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint as to defendants Petras, Haile,

23

Saukhla, Ditomas, Horch and Lewis. Plaintiff alleges that he has been diagnosed with Hepatitis

24

C since 1991. Plaintiff alleges that the California Department of Health Care Services HCV

25

Treatment Policy provides that individuals suffering from Stage 2 or greater hepatic fibrosis and

26

debilitating fatigue are candidates for HCV treatment. Plaintiff alleges that he has been a

27

candidate for HCV treatment since March 13, 2016, when he suffered from body itching,

28

debilitating fatigue, abdominal pain in the liver area and a worsened hepatitis fibrosis score.
1

1

Plaintiff alleges that in September 2016, his condition deteriorated and he also suffered from

2

nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and joint pain.

3

Plaintiff alleges that from November 2015 to July 2017, he complained to defendants

4

Haile, Saukhla and Petras about his hepatitis C symptoms. Plaintiff alleges that these defendants

5

falsified plaintiff’s medical records to state that plaintiff suffered from no symptoms in order to

6

deny his request for treatment. Plaintiff alleges that these defendants informed him that the cost

7

of the treatment was too expensive. Plaintiff alleges that these defendants knew of, or should

8

have known, of the Health Care Services HCV Treatment Policy.

9

Plaintiff alleges that on August 8, 2017, defendant Saukhla finally found that plaintiff was

10

eligible for HCV treatment. On September 15, 2017, plaintiff’s treatment commenced. At that

11

time, defendant Petras indicated that plaintiff had body wide itching, nausea and vomiting.

12

Defendant Petras told plaintiff that because of his advanced HCV liver disease, it was unlikely

13

that HCV treatment would have any effect on his HCV symptoms.

14

Plaintiff alleges that on October 19, 2017, defendant Saukhla examined plaintiff.

15

Following this examination, defendant Saukhla falsely recorded that plaintiff did not complain of

16

ongoing nausea, vomiting, loose bowels, body itching, abdominal pain, drowsiness, joint pain,

17

etc. On December 26, 2017, defendant Haile examined plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that following

18

this examination, defendant Haile falsely wrote that plaintiff did not complain of ongoing

19

symptoms.

20

On March 22, 2018, defendant Haile informed plaintiff that his HCV virus was non-

21

detectable. Plaintiff told defendant Haile that he still suffered from ongoing nausea, vomiting,

22

loose bowels, body wide itching, abdominal pain, fatigue, etc. Defendant Haile then falsely

23

reported that plaintiff did not complain of these symptoms.

24

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Haile, Saukhla and Petras violated his Eighth Amendment

25

rights by delaying his HCV treatment. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Ditomas, Horsch and

26

Lewis denied his administrative grievances in which he sought HCV treatment based on his

27

deteriorating liver functions and worsening symptoms.

28

////
2

1

Legal Standard

2

The scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) is broad.

3

Discovery may be obtained as to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

4

defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within

5

this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. The court,

6

however, may limit discovery if it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained

7

from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;” or if the

8

party who seeks discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery;”

9

or if “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

26(b)(2)(C).
“The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request

11
12

satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).” Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 1390794 at *1

13

(S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (citations omitted). “Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has the

14

burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying,

15

explaining or supporting its objections.” Id. The opposing party “has the burden to show that

16

discovery should not be allowed…” DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal.

17

2002).

18

First Request for Production of Documents

19

In the motion to compel, plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to adequately respond to

20

his first request for production of documents. (ECF No. 28 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants

21

responded to his request for production of documents with “approximately 500 pages of

22

documents containing evasive and insufficient responses that do not specifically address the

23

substance of the documents requested…” (Id.)

24

In the motion compel, plaintiff alleges that on July 5, 2020, he attempted to confer with

25

defendants regarding their inadequate responses to his request for production of documents. (Id.)

26

Plaintiff argues that defendants responded with “evasive and insufficient documents with

27

responses that do not specifically address the substance of the documents requested…” (Id.)

28

////
3

1

Attached to the motion to compel are defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s first request for

2

production of documents, containing sixteen requests. (Id. at 5-12.) Also attached to the motion

3

to compel is plaintiff’s “meet and confer” letter addressing defendants’ responses to his first

4

request for production of documents. (Id. at 15-16.) In this letter, plaintiff specifically objected

5

to defendants’ responses to request nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16. (Id.)

6

Also attached to the motion to compel is a copy of defendants’ letter responding to

7

plaintiff’s meet and confer letter. (Id. at 21-24.) This letter addressed plaintiff’s complaints

8

regarding defendants’ responses to request nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16. (Id.)

9

In their opposition to the motion to compel, defendants argue that plaintiff’s motion to

10

compel fails to identify the precise requests at issue or explain why the information he seeks is

11

relevant. (ECF No. 30 at 3.) Defendants argue that plaintiff makes boilerplate allegations that the

12

responses are inadequate and attaches some, but not all, of the relevant supporting documents.

13

(Id.) Defendants argue that plaintiff has not adequately supported his motion to compel. (Id.)

14

The undersigned agrees that plaintiff’s motion to compel fails to identify the precise

15

requests for production of documents at issue. Plaintiff has not shown, for each disputed

16

responses, why defendants’ objections are not meritorious. See Shehee v. Redding, 2018 WL

17

1136906, at *1 (E.D. Cal. March 1, 2018) (citing Grabek v. Dickinson, 2012 WL 113799, at *1

18

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012)). However, because plaintiff’s exhibits explain plaintiff’s objections to

19

defendants’ responses to request nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16, the undersigned addresses those

20

requests herein.

21

Request No. 3

22

Request no. 3 sought, “[a]ny and all documents which contain, mention, or discuss the

23

extent of the damage to an untreated HCV diseased liver at Stage 1, 2, 3, 4 and at F3-F4,

24

advanced fibrosis stage.” (ECF No. 28 at 6.)

25
26
27
28

Defendants responded to request no. 3 as follows:
Objection. The request is overbroad, vague and ambiguous.
Defendants further object that the request does not describe a
category of documents with reasonable particularity. Subject to
these objections and without waiver, answering defendants respond
as follows: Defendants do not have any responsive documents in
4

1
2

their possession, custody or control.
(Id. at 6-7.)

3

In the meet and confer letter, plaintiff argued that the physician defendants had documents

4

responsive to request no. 3 but failed to produce them. (Id. at 21.) In their response to plaintiff’s

5

meet and confer letter, defendants stated that request no. 3 does not describe a document or

6

category of documents. (Id.) Defendants again stated that they did not have responsive

7

documents in their possession, custody or control. (Id.)
The undersigned is puzzled by defendants’ objection that they do not have documents in

8
9

their possession, custody or control that are responsive to request no. 3. However, the

10

undersigned finds that request no. 3 is vague and overbroad. On these grounds, the motion to

11

compel with respect to request no. 3 is denied.

12

Request No. 7

13

Request no. 7 sought, “[a]ny and all documents which contain, mention, or discuss the

14

current and previous cost of HCV treatment within the past ten years.” (Id. at 8.)
Defendants responded to request no. 7 as follows:

15
16

Objection. This request is overbroad and not relevant to the claims
of this lawsuit. In addition, the request does not describe a category
of documents with reasonable particularity. Subject to these
objections and without waiver, answering defendants have produced
in Exhibit E the CCHCS Pharmacy Opioid Related Costs for fiscal
year 2013 through June 2020.”

17
18
19
20

(Id.)
In the meet and confer letter, plaintiff objected to defendants’ response referring to a copy

21

of a nameless pharmacy opioid related cost report for 2013-2020. (Id. at 15-16.) Plaintiff stated

22

that defendants’ response did not address the costs of his Harvoni treatment for HCV from around

23

September 2017 to around December 2017. (Id.)

24

In their letter responding to plaintiff’s meet and confer letter, defendants stated that in

25

request no. 7, plaintiff did not request documents regarding the cost of his Harvoni treatment in

26

2017 and 2018. (Id. at 21.) Instead, plaintiff sought documents regarding the cost of HCV

27

treatment for the past ten years. (Id.) Defendants stated that this request was overbroad and not

28

reasonably related to the claims or defenses in this case. (Id. at 21-22.) Defendants state that they
5

1

provided plaintiff with a chart showing the total amounts spent on HCV antivirals, opiate

2

agonists, and opiate antagonists for fiscal years 2013 through June 2020 in response to his

3

request. (Id.)

4

Request no. 7 is overbroad because it does not describe a category of documents with

5

sufficient particularity. On these grounds, the motion to compel as to request no. 7 is denied.

6

The undersigned also observes that in the meet and confer letter, plaintiff improperly attempted to

7

change the documents sought in request no. 7. See Tuvalu v. Woodford, 2006 WL 3201096, at

8

*8 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2016) (a party cannot use a motion to compel to obtain a request that he did

9

not make).

10

Request No. 8

11

Request no. 8 sought, “[a]ny and all documents which contain, mention, or discuss the

12

California Health Care and Risk Management Services policies pertaining to the delivery of

13

health care to CDCR inmates/plaintiff.” (ECF No. 28 at 8.)

14

Defendants responded to request no. 8 as follows:

15

Objection. The request is overbroad and ambiguous in seeking all
California Health Care Services and Risk Management Services
policies pertaining to the delivery of healthcare to CDCR inmates
generally. Defendants further object that this request is vague as to
time and seeks documents not relevant to the claims made in this
case. Defendants also object that disclosure of the information
sought may violate other inmates’ rights of privacy, thus making the
request improper. Defendants have produced in Exhibit A the
CCHCS Hepatitis C Care Guides issued between December 2010
through April 2019. Defendants have produced in Exhibit B the
CCHCS Hepatitis C Management Policy and Procedure, effective
October 2, 2012 to June 6, 2018.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(Id. at 8-9.)
In his meet and confer letter, plaintiff argued that defendants’ response to request no. 8 did

23
24

not specifically address the substance of his request. (Id. at 16.) Defendants’ response to

25

plaintiff’s meet and confer letter restates their objections. (Id. at 22.) Defendants also state that

26

the documents they produced reflect the policies and guidelines related to HCV care for the time

27

period relevant to the lawsuit as well as several years before the relevant time frame. (Id.)

28

////
6

1
2

Request no. 8 is overbroad and ambiguous. On these grounds, plaintiff’s motion to
compel as to request no. 8 is denied.

3

Request No. 9

4

Request no. 9 sought, “[a]ny and all documents which contain, mention, or discuss the

5

California Department of Health Care Services policy as it pertains to the California Health Care

6

Services policies and CDCR’s health care policies in the delivery of health care and HCV

7

treatment to inmates/plaintiff.” (Id. at 9.)

8
9
10
11
12

Defendants objected to request no. 9 on the grounds that it did not describe a category of
documents with reasonable particularity. (Id.) Without waiving objection, defendants responded
that they did not have any such documents in their possession, custody or control. (Id.)
Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter restated defendants’ objections to request no. 9. (Id. at
16.) In response to plaintiff’s meet and confer letter defendants stated, in part,
As discussed in defendants’ responses to your requests for
admissions and defendants’ responses to interrogatories, the
California Department of Health Care for HCV treatment does not
govern the treatment of HCV in CDCR inmates. Accordingly,
defendants do not have any documents in their possession, custody
or control that discuss the relationship between the CCHCS policies
and the California Department of Health Care Services policies.

13
14
15
16
17
18

(Id. at 22.)
Request no. 9 is overbroad and ambiguous. In addition, defendants do not have

19

possession, custody or control of the documents sought in this request. On these grounds,

20

plaintiff’s motion to compel as to request no. 9 is denied.

21

Request No. 10

22

Request no. 10 sought, “[a]ny and all documents which contain, mention or discuss

23

defendants Dr. Petras, Haile, Saukhla and Ditomas’s Hippocratic oath and the imposed medical

24

standards pertaining to the delivery of health care to patients/inmates.” (Id. at 9.)

25

Defendants objected to request no. 10 as vague as to time, compound and overbroad in

26

seeking all documents pertaining to medical standards pertaining to the delivery of health care to

27

inmates. (Id.) Without waiving objections, defendants responded that they did not have any

28

documents related to the Hippocratic oath in their possession, custody or control. (Id.)
7

1

Defendants also responded that they produced in Exhibit A the CCHCS Hepatitis C Care Guides

2

issued between December 2010 and April 2019. (Id.) Defendants also produced in Exhibit B the

3

CCHCS Hepatitis C Management Policy and Procedure, effective October 2, 2012 to June 6,

4

2018. (Id.)
In the meet and confer letter, plaintiff argued that defendants’ response to request no. 10

5
6

was insufficient and did not specifically address the substance of his request. (Id. at 16.) In their

7

letter responding to plaintiff’s meet and confer letter, defendants restated their response to request

8

no. 10.

9

Request no. 10 is vague, overbroad and compound. In addition, the court cannot order

10

defendants to produce documents they do not possess. Accordingly, the motion to compel as to

11

request no. 10 is denied.

12

Request No. 15

13

Request no. 15 sought, “[a]ny and all documents which contain, mention or discuss the

14

names, title and duties and responsibilities of all CMF health care staff who are members of the

15

HCV oversight committee, currently and previously within the last five years.” (Id. at 11.)

16
17

Defendants objected to request no. 15 on the grounds that the request sought documents
not relevant to the claims made in this case. (Id.)

18

In the meet and confer letter, plaintiff did not address defendants’ objection that the

19

documents sought were not relevant. (Id. at 16.) In their letter responding to plaintiff’s meet and

20

confer letter, defendants restate their relevancy objection. (Id. at 23.)

21

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the relevancy of the documents

22

sought in request no. 15. The undersigned also finds that request no. 15 is overbroad. For these

23

reasons, the motion to compel as to request no. 15 is denied.

24

Request No. 16

25

Request no. 16 sought, “[a]ny and all documents which contain, mention, or discuss the

26

HCV oversight committees master log pertaining to HCV cases, HCV treatment

27

recommendations, treatment authorization requests, HCV treatment approvals and denials for

28

inmates/plaintiff at CMF, currently and within the last five years.” (Id. at 11.)
8

1

Defendants objected to request no. 16 on the grounds that disclosure of these documents

2

may violate other inmates’ rights of privacy, thus making the request improper. (Id. at 12.)

3

Defendants also objected that the request sought documents not relevant to the claims made in

4

this action. (Id.) Without waiving objection, defendants produced in Exhibit G the master log of

5

treatment pertaining to plaintiff for the years 2015-2017, which is the timeframe relevant to this

6

action. (Id.)

7

In his meet and confer letter, plaintiff did not address defendants’ argument that the

8

documents sought in request no. 16 regarding other inmates are not relevant to this action. (Id. at

9

16.) In their letter responding to plaintiff’s meet and confer letter, defendants restated their

10

objections. (Id. at 23.)
Defendants’ objection that the documents sought in request no. 16 are privileged is not

11
12

well supported. Defendants failed to cite any authority for this argument and failed to produce a

13

privilege log and affidavit from an official of the agency in control of the materials sought in

14

request no. 16. See Garrett v. Macomber, 2019 WL 6330269, at * 4 (E.D. Cal. 2019).

15

However, plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating how the HCV oversight

16

committee master log pertaining to HCV cases, HCV treatment recommendations, treatment

17

authorization requests, HCV treatment approvals and denials for all inmates at CMF within the

18

last five years is relevant to this action. Accordingly, the motion to compel as to request no. 16 is

19

denied.

20

Request for Admissions

21

Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ responses to his requests for admissions were “evasive

22

and insufficient…that do not specifically address the substance of the admissions requested.”

23

(ECF No. 28 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that on July 5, 2020, he attempted to confer with defendants

24

regarding their inadequate responses to his requests for admissions. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff argues

25

that defendants’ responses were evasive and insufficient and did not specifically address the

26

substance of the admissions. (Id. at 2.)

27
28

Attached to the motion to compel is plaintiff’s “meet and confer” letter addressing
defendants’ responses to his requests for admissions. (Id. at 18-19.) In this letter, plaintiff
9

1

specifically objected to defendant Saukhla’s response to request no. 15, defendant Haile’s

2

response to request no. 8 and defendant Lewis’s response to request nos. 2 and 5. (Id.)

3

Plaintiff’s motion to compel fails to identify the specific requests for admissions at issue.

4

Therefore, plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that defendants provided inadequate

5

responses to all of the requests for admissions. However, because plaintiff’s exhibits identify

6

four specific requests for admission that are at-issue, the undersigned addresses those requests for

7

admissions herein.

8

Legal Standard

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) provides:

10

A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for
purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within
the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the application of
law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any
described documents.

11
12
13

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1).
“One of the primary purposes of request for admissions is to narrow the issues for trial by

14
15

identifying and eliminating those matters on which the parties agree.” Taylor v. Calaveras

16

County, 2019 WL 6341131, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2019) (citations omitted).

17

Request No. 15—Defendant Saukhla

18

Request no. 15 stated, “Defendant Dr. Saukhla admit that while under your care and

19

monitoring plaintiff suffered from the worsening HCF conditions in # 3, 4, 11 admissions for

20

approximately 19 months prior to getting HCV treatment.” (ECF No. 30-1 at 86.)
Defendant Saukhla responded, “Objection. This request is compound, argumentative,

21
22

vague as to time, and an incomplete hypothetical. Defendant further objects that the request is

23

premised and/or conditioned upon the responses plaintiff anticipates for other requests for

24

admissions, thus making the request ambiguous.” (Id.)

25

The undersigned finds that request no. 15 is vague and ambiguous. Accordingly, the

26

motion to compel as to request no. 15 is denied.

27

////

28

////
10

1

Request No. 8—Defendant Haile

2

Request No. 8 stated, “Defendant Dr. Haile admit you are legally obligated to depart from

3

the CCHCS (CDCR) HCV treatment guidelines and use your professional clinical judgments in

4

evaluating plaintiff’s HCV condition tailored to plaintiff’s individual clinical circumstances, for

5

HCV treatment.” (ECF No. 30-1 at 53.)
Defendant Haile responded, “Objection. The request is compound, argumentative, and

6
7

presents an incomplete hypothetical.” (Id.)

8

The undersigned finds that request no. 8 presents an incomplete hypothetical in that it

9

does not state enough facts for defendant to provide an opinion. See Evans v. Tilton, 2010 WL

10

1610988, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. April 21, 2010) (defendants are not required to respond to requests

11

for admissions that contain an incomplete hypothetical). Accordingly, the motion to compel as

12

to this request is denied.

13

Request Nos. 2 and 5—Defendant Lewis

14

Request no. 2 stated, “Defendant Lewis admit that the application of the CCHCS HCV

15

care guide in denying and delaying plaintiff’s HCF treatment until his HCV condition, liver

16

disease, and liver functions worsened to F3 near F4 end stage liver disease with advanced

17

fibrosis, must be constitutionally adequate.” (ECF No. 30-1 at 67.)
Defendant Lewis responded, “Objection. The request is compound, argumentative, vague

18
19

as to time and unintelligible.” (Id.)

20

The undersigned finds that request no. 2 is vague. It also appears that request no. 2

21

improperly seeks an admission of a conclusion of law. See Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 60

22

F.Supp.2d 1050, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (“Requests for admissions cannot be used to compel an

23

admission of a conclusion of law.”) Accordingly, the motion to compel as to this request is

24

denied.

25

Request no. 5 stated, “Defendant Lewis admit that constitutionally adequate medical care

26

encompasses the California Department of Health Care Services HCV treatment policies.” (ECF

27

No. 30-1 at 68.)

28

////
11

Defendant Lewis responded, “Objection. This request is argumentative, and is vague and

1
2

ambiguous as to what is meant by ‘encompasses.’” (Id.) The undersigned observes that in

3

defendants’ letter responding to plaintiff’s meet and confer letter, in addressing request no. 5,

4

defendants state, “as discussed in defendants’ various discovery responses and this letter, the

5

California Department of Health Care Services HCV treatment policy does not govern the

6

treatment of HCV in CDCR inmates, and is therefore unrelated to the claims or defenses in this

7

lawsuit.” (ECF No. 28 at 24.)

8

The undersigned finds that request no. 5 is vague and ambiguous. Request no. 5 also

9

appears to be based on an erroneous premise, i.e., that the treatment of HCV in CDCR inmates is

10

governed by California Department of Health Care Services HCV treatment policy. Accordingly,

11

the motion to compel as to request no. 5 is denied.

12

Remaining Matters

13

In the motion to compel, plaintiff also requests that each defendant be ordered to serve on

14

him all documents that mention or explain the basis for each defendants’ response to his request

15

for admission. (ECF No. 28 at 2.) Plaintiff may not request documents in a request for

16

admissions. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied to the extent he requests that

17

defendants be ordered to provide documents in their response to his request for admissions.

18

Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents

19

Plaintiff alleges that on June 5, 2020, he served defendants with written interrogatories

20

and a second request for production of documents. (ECF No. 28 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that in

21

interrogatory no. 17, he requested copies of all disclosable documents and tangible things that the

22

disclosing parties may use to support their defense. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants

23

responded that they served a document production on plaintiff on June 15, 2020, and that many of

24

the documents included therein supported their defenses. (Id.) In the motion to compel, plaintiff

25

alleges that on June 15, 2020, defendants served him with approximately 500 pages of

26

documents. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that defendants should be compelled to identify the documents

27

which specifically respond to interrogatory no. 17. (Id.)

28

////
12

In the pending motion to compel, plaintiff also challenges defendants’ response to his

1
2

third request for production of documents, request no. 1, which is virtually identical to

3

interrogatory no. 17. The undersigned herein addresses the merits of plaintiff’s third request for

4

production of documents, request no. 1. The undersigned need not address interrogatory no. 17

5

because it is duplicative of plaintiff’s third request for production of documents, request no. 1.

6

Third Request for Production of Documents

7

Plaintiff alleges that on June 23, 2020, he served defendants with a third request for

8

production of documents. (ECF No. 28 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants “refused to

9

comply” with his request for production of any and all writings, documents, and all other tangible

10

things that support “your claims and defenses.” (Id.) A copy of plaintiff’s third request for

11

production of documents is attached as an exhibit to the motion to compel. (Id. at 29-30.)

12

Plaintiff is apparently referring to request for production no. 1, which contained the request

13

described in the motion to compel.

14

In response to request no. 1, defendants objected that the request did not describe a

15

document or category of documents with reasonable particularity and, as framed, called for

16

disclosure of information and legal analysis protected by the attorney work-product doctrine.

17

(ECF No. 30-1 at 112-13.) Without waiving these objections, defendants responded that they

18

served a document production on June 15, 2020, and many of the documents included therein

19

support defendants’ defenses. (Id.) Defendants state that they have not identified any other

20

documents in their current possession, custody or control that may be used to support their claims

21

or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment. (Id.) Defendants state that at this

22

time, defendants provide no additional documents in response to this request. (Id.)

23
24

The undersigned observes that defendants served plaintiff with requests for production of
documents which were similarly worded to plaintiff’s request no. 1.1 Good cause appearing,

25
26
27
28

For example, in request for production no. 4, defendants asked plaintiff to, “[p]roduce any and
all writings, documents, and other tangible things that support your contention that defendant
Saukhla failed to provide you adequate medical care as alleged in the complaint.” (ECF No. 26-2
at 34.) Defendants served plaintiff with identical requests for production of documents for
defendants Petras, Haile and Ditomas. (Id.)
13
1

1

defendants are ordered to clarify which of the documents they served on plaintiff on June 15,

2

2020, respond to plaintiff’s request for production no. 1.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 28)

4

is granted with respect to request for production no. 1, third set; defendants shall provide plaintiff

5

with a further response to this request, as discussed above, within thirty days of the date of this

6

order; plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied in all other respects.

7

Dated: October 13, 2020

8
9
10
Mart2075.com
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14