Heilman v. Cook et al

Filing 153

ORDER On Plaintiff's 142 Motion For Supplemental Discover Responses. Plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to provide supplemental responses to requests for production of documents (RFPs), interrogatories, and requests for admission ( RFAs) is granted in part and denied in part. Because Kilgore cannot convert plaintiff's generic request for a CV into a specific request for these new items, his motion to compel as to RFP 1 is denied. Heilman's motion to compel as to RF Ps 4 and 6 is granted. Since it is the defendant's burden to support her objections with competent evidence, and there is no declaration before the court of what the defense produced, the Court grants Heilman's motion to compel as to RFP 8. Heilman's motion to compel supplemental responses to interrogatories and RFAs is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 2/6/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Thomas John Heilman,

12

Case No.: 14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. Cook, et al.,

15

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
DISCOVERY RESPONSES [Doc. 142]
Defendants.

16
17

For the reasons below, plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to provide

18

supplemental responses to requests for production of documents (RFPs), interrogatories,

19

and requests for admission (RFAs) is granted in part and denied in part.

20

LEGAL STANDARDS

21

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to

22

any party’s claim or defense. . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “If the party requesting

23

discovery is dissatisfied with any of the responses, the party may move to compel further

24

responses by informing the court ‘which discovery requests are the subject of [the] motion

25

to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the [c]ourt why the information sought

26

is relevant and why [the opposing party’s] objections are not justified.’” United States v.

27

Baisden, 881 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1205 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (citation omitted). “The party seeking

28

to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy
1
14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS

1

requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).” O’Donnell v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 502, 503

2

(S.D. Cal. 2008) (citation omitted).

3

Once this burden is met, “the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing

4

that discovery should not be allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining and

5

supporting its objections with competent evidence.” La. Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Inst’l

6

Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 485 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citation omitted).

7
8
9
10

DISCUSSION
A.

Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a), plaintiff Thomas Heilman moves to

compel supplemental responses to RFPs 1, 4, 6, and 8.

11

1.

12

In RFP 1, Heilman requested “a copy of your curriculum vitae.” [Doc. 142, at 3;

13

Doc. 146, at 3.] Although defendant J. Cook produced her CV, Heilman complains that

14

the document lacks items such as “medical courses completed, and also medical training

15

required and completed under ‘CDCR’ [California Department of Corrections and

16

Rehabilitation] regulations for the position of doctor/physician/registered nurse. . .”

17

[Doc. 142, at 3-4.] But, as defendant points out, RFP 1 does not demand such highly

18

specific information; it merely requests a “curriculum vitae.” Defendant produced a

19

standard CV—including her education, internal medicine internship, family practice

20

residency, medical work history, research, and publications [Doc. 142, at 17-19]—so it

21

seems there is nothing left to compel.

RFP 1

22

Yet Heilman suggests that these specific items must be included in a medical CV,

23

relying on Kilgore v. Mandeville, No. 2:07-CV-2485-GEB-KJN P, 2010 WL 2557702

24

(E.D. Cal. June 21, 2010). But that is not Kilgore’s holding. In Kilgore, the plaintiff

25

specifically requested a CV listing “any subsequent training,” and the court ordered one

26

produced that included “medical education, training and employment.” Id. at 7. Kilgore

27

never suggests that a CV’s “medical education” section must include every single medical

28

course completed, nor that the “training” section must specifically include training under
2
14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS

1

CDCR regulations (rather than, say, a generalized listing of medical internships,

2

residencies, and fellowships).

3
4

Because Kilgore cannot convert plaintiff’s generic request for a CV into a specific
request for these new items, his motion to compel as to RFP 1 is DENIED.

5

2.

6

Heilman also seeks copies of the specific CDCR medical policies covering

7

evaluation of emergent medical conditions (RFP 4) and the Mental Health Crisis Bed unit’s

8

logbook for May 9, 2013 (RFP 6). Defendant responds that her diligent search failed to

9

locate any such documents and that she cannot produce what does not exist. For support,

10

defendant points to counsel’s declaration, which states that counsel “sent Plaintiff Thomas

11

John Heilman a letter” responding to the RFPs and that a “copy of the letter is attached.”

12

[Doc. 146-1, at 2.] But nothing is attached.

RFPs 4 and 6

13

Perhaps this omission was merely an oversight. But based on the record before the

14

Court, defendant has merely raised a potentially valid objection that is not supported by

15

any competent evidence. Thus, Heilman’s motion to compel as to RFPs 4 and 6 is

16

GRANTED. If these items are in Cook’s possession, custody, or control, she must produce

17

them. Also, if they are in the possession, custody, or control of the California Attorney

18

General’s Office, which represents Cook, that Office must produce them. See Bovarie v.

19

Schwarzenegger, No. 08cv1661 LAB (NLS), 2011 WL 719206, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 22,

20

2011) (“Documents in the possession of a party’s attorney [including the Attorney

21

General’s Office] . . . may be considered to be within the control of the party for purposes

22

of a Rule 34 production request.”) (citations omitted).

23

3.

24

Finally, as to RFP 8, Heilman requested “all records or medical documents” Cook

25

reviewed, which led her to the diagnosis that his “collapsed left lung (pneumothorax)

26

occurred ‘spontaneously.’” [Doc. 146, at 9-10.] Cook responded that she “reviewed

27

medical records from Alvarado Hospital and CDCR in noting a spontaneous

28

pneumothorax, which have already been produced. . .” [Id. at 5] This is an unfortunately-

RFP 8

3
14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS

1

worded response. A reader might assume it was the medical records that were “noting”

2

the spontaneous pneumothorax, rather than Cook who first noted that diagnosis after

3

reviewing the records. In fact, Cook believes Heilman’s motion to compel is based on

4

exactly that misinterpretation, and she clarifies that “she reviewed medical records, which

5

were already in Plaintiff’s possession, that lead Defendant to note that Plaintiff had a

6

spontaneous pneumothorax.” [Doc. 146, at 6.]

7

Cook’s interpretation of the motivation for Heilman’s motion may be right, but

8

Heilman’s exact wording suggests he has received no medical records whatsoever that

9

pre-date Cook’s diagnosis. He writes, “There are No medical records from Alvarado

10

Hospital prior to Defendant Cook’s inclusion of this ‘spontaneously-occurring event’

11

theory [on a June 11, 2013 physician request form].” [Doc. 142, at 12.] Since it is the

12

defendant’s burden to support her objections with competent evidence, and there is no

13

declaration before the court of what the defense produced, the Court GRANTS Heilman’s

14

motion to compel as to RFP 8. If these records are in the possession, custody, or control

15

of Cook or the California Attorney General’s Office, they must be produced. If Cook has

16

indeed produced these medical records already, she must simply produce them again.

17

B.

Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories and RFAs

18

Heilman moves to compel responses to 11 interrogatory answers that he deems

19

“false, inaccurate and evasive,” as well as 14 RFA answers that he claims amount to

20

refusals to respond. [See Doc. 142, at 14.] This entire motion boils down to one dispute:

21

Heilman believes that Cook medically examined him immediately after the May 9, 2013

22

incident, and Cook responds that she did not. For example, in Interrogatory Request

23

number 2, Heilman asks her to state “the exact extent of your physical examination of

24

Heilman’s injuries . . . on May 9, 2013,” and Cook responds that she “did not examine

25

Plaintiff on May 9, 2013.” [Doc. 142, at 39-40.] This response is not legally deficient,

26

even if Heilman has contrary information from other witnesses or defendants. This Court

27

cannot order Cook to provide answers or admissions on a medical examination she swears

28

she never conducted. If her responses turn out to be false, as Heilman claims, then he can
4
14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS

1

use them to impeach her at trial. At this stage, however, Heilman’s motion to compel

2

supplemental responses to interrogatories and RFAs is DENIED.

3

Dated: February 6, 2017

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS