Mir v. Medical Board of California et al
Filing
207
ORDER Denying Joint 201 Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents from Sharon Levine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 11/14/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JEHAN ZEB MIR, M.D.,
11
Civil No.
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER REGARDING JOINT
MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
DOCUMENTS FROM SHARON
LEVINE
v.
13
KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER, et al.,
14
15
Defendants.
16
12cv2340-GPC (DHB)
17
18
19
[ECF No. 201]
20
21
On October 24, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery
22
Dispute. (ECF No. 201.) Plaintiff moves to compel documents from Defendant Sharon
23
Levine. Upon review of the motion, the Court noted that Defendants failed to provide their
24
portion of the Joint Motion as required by this Court’s Chambers Rules.1 Accordingly, the
25
26
27
28
1
The Court has warned Plaintiff on numerous occasions that he must comply with Judge Bartick’s
Chambers Rules regarding the filing of discovery motions. The Court likewise expects Defendants to
cooperate and participate in the joint briefing of any future discovery motion in this case, in accordance
with the Chambers Rules.
1
12cv2340-GPC-DHB
1
Court directed Defendants to respond. (ECF No. 202.) On October 28, 2016, Defendants
2
filed a response opposing Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 203.) For the reasons
3
set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
4
I. BACKGROUND
5
Plaintiff initiated this action on September 25, 2012, alleging Defendants wrongfully
6
took disciplinary action against his physician’s and surgeon’s certificate. (ECF No. 1.)
7
Plaintiff specifically named Kimberly Kirchmeyer (“Kirchmeyer”) and Sharon Levine
8
(“Levin”) as Defendants. (Id.) On May 11, 2016, the Court issued an order on Defendants’
9
motion to dismiss, and held that the only remaining claim in this action is Plaintiff’s § 1983
10
claim for prospective relief against Kirchmeyer and Levine in their official capacities.
11
(ECF No. 159.)
12
On June 29, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Depositions of
13
Defendants Kirchmeyer and Levine. (ECF No. 175.) The Court noted that Plaintiff had
14
included Requests for Production of Documents in the original deposition notices served
15
on Kirchmeyer and Levine. (Id. at 6-7.) Kirchmeyer and Levine objected to the Document
16
Requests, and the Court sustained the objections, with the exception of five Requests. (Id.)
17
The Court ordered Kirchmeyer and Levine to respond to Request D, E, H, P, and Q, and to
18
produce all responsive documents at their depositions.
19
discovery until July 29, 2016, but only for purpose of completing the depositions of
20
Kirchmeyer and Levine. (Id. at 8.) The Court also directed Kirchmeyer and Levine to
21
“respond to the Requests for Production of Documents that were attached to their
22
deposition notices, as directed above.” (Id.) The Court did not authorize Plaintiff to
23
conduct any additional or different document discovery.
(Id.)
The Court re-opened
24
On August 10, 2016, Plaintiff served an amended Notice of Deposition for Levine
25
to be held on August 29, 2016, and again included a Request for Production of Documents.
26
(ECF No. 201 at 24-32.) However, Plaintiff did not merely re-serve the five Document
27
Requests – D, E, H, P, and Q – that the Court previously determined Defendants should
28
respond to. Instead, Plaintiff served eight Document Requests, including Requests for
2
12cv2340-GPC-DHB
1
2
3
4
5
information that he had not previously asked for. (Id. at 30-31.)
Levine Responded to the amended Requests on August 26, 2016, and asserted
several objections. (Id. at 34-41.)
Plaintiff now moves to compel Levine to provide further responses to amended
Requests A, B, C, D, E, and G.
6
II. ANALYSIS
7
Rule 30(b)(2) provides that a deposition notice may be accompanied by a Request
8
for Production of Documents under Rule 34. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(2). District courts have
9
broad discretion to limit the scope of any discovery method if it determines that “the
10
discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some
11
other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12
26(b)(2)(C)(i). The Court may also limit discovery that is outside the scope permitted by
13
Rule 26(b)(1), which provides “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any non-
14
privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the
15
needs of the case. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii).
16
A.
17
Plaintiff argues Levine should be ordered to produce documents responsive to
18
amended Requests A, B, and C. In Request A, Plaintiff seeks documents concerning an
19
allegedly false statement Plaintiff made in 2000. (ECF No. 201 at 30.) In Request B,
20
Plaintiff requests documents showing he was given “Notice of Specific Documentation
21
Charges,” and in Request C, he seeks “results of all diagnostic tests” upon which the
22
Medical Board made its findings. (Id.) Levine responded that the requested documents
23
included transcripts and exhibits from Plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing, Proposed Decisions,
24
and Decisions of the Medical Board, which are all part of the State Administrative Record
25
that Plaintiff already possesses. (Id. at 37.)
Amended Requests for Production A, B and C
26
First, the Court finds Levine’s response – that the documents are equally available
27
to Plaintiff in the Administrative Record – is sufficient. The Court will not order Levine
28
3
12cv2340-GPC-DHB
1
to produce duplicative documents, as it would be unduly burdensome. Fed. R. Civ. P.
2
26(b)(2)(C)(i).
3
Second, the Court finds Plaintiff improperly amended his Document Requests.
4
When the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel the depositions of Kirchmeyer and
5
Levine, the Court did not authorize Plaintiff to serve any additional or different Document
6
Requests on Defendants. (See ECF No. 175 at 8.) The Court has compared the amended
7
Requests for Production to Levine with Plaintiff’s prior Request for Production to Levine.
8
(Compare ECF No. 165 at 18-20 with ECF No. 201 at 30-31.) The documents sought in
9
Requests A, B, and C were not requested in any of Plaintiff’s original Document Requests.
10
Therefore, Requests A, B, and C are new Requests and exceed the scope of the Court’s
11
June 29, 2016 order. Further, at the time of the Court’s order compelling the depositions,
12
discovery was closed. The Court specifically limited its order to re-opening discovery
13
solely for the purpose of allowing the depositions of Kirchmeyer and Levine to go forward.
14
Because Requests A, B and C were served without permission, and after the discovery cut
15
off, the Court finds they are untimely and unauthorized.
16
17
Accordingly, the Court will not order Levine to further respond to Requests A, B, or
C.
18
B.
19
Plaintiff’s amended Requests D, E and G are the same as the prior Requests D, E,
20
and P. (Compare ECF No. 165 at 18-20 with ECF No. 201 at 30-31.) In Requests D and
21
E, Plaintiff seeks documents from open and closed sessions of the Medical Board in 2011
22
and 2012. (ECF No. 201 at 30-31.) In her response to amended Requests D and E, Levine
23
stated that “after a diligent search and inquiry,” she was unable to locate any responsive
24
documents because the documents are not in her possession, custody or control. (ECF No.
25
201 at 39-40.)
Amended Request for Production D, E, and G
26
The Court previously held that minutes from the Medical Board’s closed sessions in
27
2006, 2008, and 2010 were privileged under the deliberative process privilege. (See ECF
28
No. 177.) Plaintiff argues the Court’s earlier determination that the closed session minutes
4
12cv2340-GPC-DHB
1
were privileged, is incorrect, and Levine should be ordered to produce the closes session
2
minutes from 2011 and 2012.
3
Here, the Court does not find it necessary to re-address its prior ruling regarding the
4
deliberative process privilege because it does not appear Levine is withholding any
5
responsive documents on the basis of privilege.2 Instead, Levine’s response indicates she
6
does not possess any responsive documents. Levine’s response is sufficient. Therefore,
7
the Court will not order Levine to further respond to Request D and E.
8
With regard to Request G, Plaintiff seeks documents exchanged between Levine and
9
Vinod Kumar Garg, M.D. relating to Dr. Garg’s 1993 disciplinary proceeding in the State
10
of New York. (ECF No. 201 at 31.) Levine objects on grounds that the requested
11
information violates privacy rights and is irrelevant. The Court agrees. Plaintiff has not
12
made a sufficient showing of relevance, aside from speculation and innuendo that Dr. Garg
13
was “in cahoots” with Defendants. (ECF No. 301 at 19.) He has also not shown a sufficient
14
need for the information.
15
Documents related to Dr. Garg’s suspension by the N.Y. Medical Board at the medical
16
board hearing held in 2005. . . .” (Id.) Further, Plaintiff has been able to depose Dr. Garg.
17
(See ECF No. 99.) Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficient information about Dr.
18
Garg. Therefore, the Court will not order Levine to further respond to Request G.
Plaintiff indicates that Defendants have “produced the
19
III. CONCLUSION
20
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion to
21
compel production of documents from Defendant Sharon Levine is DENIED.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 14, 2016
_________________________
LOUISA S PORTER
United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27
28
2
The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed an Objection to Court’s ruling on the deliberative process
privilege issue. That Objection is currently pending before Judge Curiel. (See ECF No. 185.)
5
12cv2340-GPC-DHB
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?