Roberts v. Hensley et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 46 Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental Interrogatories. The Court directs that the proposed supplemental interrogatories authorized by this order are deemed served as of the date of this order. Defendants must answer the authorized interrogatories by March 24, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 2/23/17. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

TONY ROBERTS,

Case No.: 15cv1871-LAB (BLM)
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES

v.
8
9

S. HENSLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

[ECF No. 46]
10
11
12

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental

13

Interrogatories” [ECF No. 46 (“Mot.”], Defendants’ opposition [ECF No. 49 (“Oppo.”)], and

14

Plaintiff’s reply [ECF No. 51 (“Reply”)]. Having considered all of the briefing and supporting

15

documents, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES

16

IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve supplemental interrogatories.

17

DISCUSSION

18

Plaintiff asks the Court for leave to serve supplemental interrogatories pursuant to

19

Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Mot. In support, Plaintiff explains that

20

on September 6, 2016, he served written interrogatories and requests for production (“RFPs”)

21

on Defendants, including Defendants Hipp, Hensley, Nguyen, and Sabati, and claims that those

22

Defendants’ responses were incomplete and evasive.

Id. at 4.

Plaintiff contends that he

1
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

“requires additional written interrogatories to adequately prepare for and proceed to trial,” and

2

that he will be severely prejudiced if his motion is denied. See id. Plaintiff asserts that the

3

supplemental interrogatories will “focus on specific relevant facts” and identifies the

4

interrogatories as directed to the defendant’s “personal involvement,” “facts that substantiate

5

the degree or nature of [defendant’s] involvement,” and whether defendants “purposefully

6

ignored their own expressed orders to provide plaintiff dental treatment for reasons unrelated

7

to his dental needs.” Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff seeks to serve thirteen supplemental interrogatories

8

on Defendant Hipp [Mot., Exh. 1], thirteen supplemental interrogatories on Defendant Hensley

9

[id., Exh. 3], nineteen supplemental interrogatories on Defendant Nguyen [id., Exh. 4], and

10

fourteen supplemental interrogatories on Defendant Sabati [id., Exh. 2].

The proposed

11

interrogatories are not identical and appear to be tailored to each Defendant. See id.

12

Defendants claim that Plaintiff already has propounded voluminous discovery consisting

13

of 149 interrogatories and three sets of requests for production (“RFPs”), that they have

14

responded to the first two sets of RFPs, and that they are in the process of responding to the

15

third set. Oppo. at 2. Defendants further maintain that they produced all of Plaintiff’s dental

16

records, prison policies and procedures related to dental care, information about their

17

“involvement in Plaintiff’s dental care,” and names of office technicians who “might have been

18

responsible for scheduling follow up appointments during the times at issue.” Id. at 2-3, 6.

19

Defendants thus contend that Plaintiff’s requests for additional discovery are unnecessary and

20

harassing, and ask the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion. Id. at 6-7.

21

Although Defendants attached Plaintiff’s initial interrogatories to their opposition,

22

Defendants did not provide their complete interrogatory responses. See Oppo. In his reply,
2
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

Plaintiff provided interrogatory responses from Defendants Malek, Hipp, Sabati, Hensley, and

2

Nguyen. See Reply, Exhs. 3-4, 7-9. The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions and notes

3

that Plaintiff served twenty-five interrogatories on Defendant Hipp [Oppo., Exh. 1 at 17-23],

4

twenty-five interrogatories on Defendant Hensley [id. at 31-38], twenty-four interrogatories on

5

Defendant Nguyen [id. at 2-9], eighteen interrogatories on Defendant Sabati [id. at 10-16],

6

twenty-five interrogatories on Defendant Malek [id. at 24-30], ten interrogatories on Defendant

7

Behrens [id. at 39-43], and twenty-two interrogatories on Defendant Mendoza [id. at 44-51],

8

149 interrogatories in total. See id.; see also Oppo. at 2 (containing Defendants’ representation

9

that Plaintiff served 149 interrogatories). Defendants Hipp, Hensley, Nguyen, Sabati, and Malek

10

provided substantive responses to the vast majority of Plaintiff’s original interrogatories but

11

objected to some on the grounds that they sought expert opinions beyond the Defendant’s

12

expertise or knowledge and some on the ground that the request sought irrelevant information.

13

See Reply, Exhs. 3-4, 7-9. It is unclear from the parties’ submissions whether Plaintiff was

14

provided with interrogatory responses from Defendants Behrens and Mendoza but the Court

15

was not. See Oppo., Exh. 1; Reply.

16

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) provides that “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court,

17

a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all

18

discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent

19

consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).” A party “seeking leave to . . . serve more Interrogatories

20

than are contemplated by the Federal Rules . . . must make a particularized showing of [why]

21

the discovery is necessary.” Ioane v. Spjute, 2015 WL 1984835, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2015)

22

(citing Castaneda v. Burger King Corp., 2009 WL 4282596, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2009) and
3
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Aon Risk Servs., Inc. of Minnesota, 187 F.R.D. 578, 586 (D. Minn.

2

1999)); Jacobs v. Scribner, 2008 WL 2773999, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2008) (“a bare assertion

3

of need is usually insufficient”).

4

Here, Plaintiff has articulated that he needs to serve additional interrogatories because

5

he lacks legal knowledge, is incarcerated, has “limit[ed] [] ability to pursue all means of

6

discovery,” and needs to ask follow-up questions because Defendants have not adequately

7

responded to the initial interrogatories. Mot. at 4-5. The Court finds that this explanation is

8

sufficient to justify additional interrogatories. See McNeil v. Hayes, 2014 WL 1125014, at *2-3

9

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2014) (granting leave to serve additional interrogatories in a civil rights action

10

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, noting plaintiff’s “pro se status with limited resources and

11

limited knowledge,” that “the ‘particularized showing’ to obtain leave to serve additional

12

interrogatories cannot be divorced from [p]laintiff’s pro se status,” and that “depositions, which

13

would relieve some of the pressure created by having to respond to interrogatories, are simply

14

not a realistic option, as incarcerated pro se litigants are rarely in the position to conduct

15

depositions”); McClellan v. Kern County Sheriff’s Office, 2015 WL 5732242, at *1 (E.D. Cal.

16

Sept. 29, 2015) (“An incarcerated party’s highly limited ability to conduct a deposition in prison

17

may contribute to a finding of good cause to file additional interrogatories.”). However, the

18

additional interrogatories may not duplicate prior requests or answers, may not seek information

19

beyond the Defendant’s personal knowledge, and may not seek information that is beyond the

20

scope of discovery permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. See Williams v. Cnty. of Sacramento Sheriff’s

21

Dept., 2007 WL 587237, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb 26, 2007) (plaintiff bears the burden of establishing

22
4
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

the need for additional interrogatories and that information sought is not duplicative); Robinson

2

v. Adams, 2011 WL 2118753, at *11 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2011) (same).

3

1) Plaintiff’s Proposed Supplemental Interrogatories to Defendant Hipp

4

Plaintiff contends in his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) that Defendant Hipp, a

5

Registered Dental Hygienist at California Men’s Colony (“CMC”), examined him on February 23,

6

2012, and reviewed Plaintiff’s CDC 7362 Health Care Services Request Form for dental

7

treatment. See ECF No. 32 at 3, 9. Plaintiff further claims that Defendant Hipp failed to provide

8

treatment and “ensure [that] plaintiff was scheduled for treatment after reviewing plaintiff’s

9

Treatment Plan from April 29, 2011.1” Id.

10

Defendants assert in their opposition that Defendant Hipp cleaned Plaintiff’s teeth on

11

February 23, 2012, and never performed a diagnostic oral examination of Plaintiff. Oppo. at 4.

12

In her responses to Plaintiff’s initial interrogatories, Defendant Hipp stated that on February 23,

13

2012, she saw Plaintiff, reviewed his chart, and performed “teeth cleaning, also known as a

14

scaling,” which “also included oral hygiene instructions, polishing, flossing, and peridex rinse

15

after the cleaning.” Reply, Exh. 4 at 29. Defendant Hipp then entered progress notes stating

16

that Plaintiff needed fillings in teeth 4 and 14, and “submitted the paperwork for processing.”

17

Id.

18

February 23, 2012, or any other date, because such examination “is not within a dental

19

hygienist’s scope of practice.” Id.

20

Defendant Hipp stated that she did not perform a diagnostic oral examination on

In Plaintiff’s proposed supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 3-7, Plaintiff seeks

21
22

1

Plaintiff alleges that the Treatment Plan noted that three to four of his cavities needed to be
filled. Id.
5
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

additional information regarding the treatment provided by Defendant Hipp. The Court finds

2

that proposed Interrogatory No. 42 duplicates prior interrogatories and therefore denies

3

Plaintiff’s request to serve it.

4

Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, 5-7. Some of these interrogatories include facts that may not be

5

accurate so in answering the interrogatories, Defendant Hipp may identify any facts or

6

assumptions that are inaccurate.

The Court grants Plaintiff’s request to serve supplemental

7

Defendant Hipp also described in her initial responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories CDCR’s

8

classifications of periodontal disease, and stated that dentists determine the appropriate

9

classification, that according to CDCR’s policies and procedures, inmates over 50 years of age

10

are eligible for teeth cleaning once a year, and that inmates who have been diagnosed with gum

11

disease may be placed on a four- to six-month eligible recall. Id. at 26, 30. Defendant Hipp did

12

not respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories regarding CDCR’s policies and procedures concerning

13

cleaning inmate’s teeth every 90 days on the basis that they were not relevant to any claim or

14

defense in this suit. Id.

15

Defendant Hipp also stated in her initial interrogatory responses that a person’s oral cavity

16

is not sterile, that some bacteria is always present there, and that such bacteria can multiply

17

and eventually lead to gum disease in the absence of good oral hygiene and dietary practices.

18

Reply, Exh. 4 at 26-27. She also stated that oral hygiene practices, consistency of the gums,

19

and diet may contribute to gum inflammation, but inflammation is always present at a very low

20
21
22

2

Plaintiff lists two interrogatories numbered 4. Mot. at 12. The Court is denying Plaintiff’s
request as to the interrogatory asking if Defendant Hipp conducted a comprehensive dental
examination. The Court grants Plaintiff’s request to serve the second interrogatory seeking a
definition of “interceptive care.”
6
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

level. Id. Defendant Hipp also described signs and symptoms of periodontitis, and stated that

2

untreated periodontal disease can lead to bone loss. Id. at 27-28. She further stated that

3

depending on a person’s diet, consistency of tooth structure, and daily oral hygiene practices,

4

“plaque on teeth can break down tooth enamel and lead to tooth decay,” and that “untreated

5

tooth decay can progress to cavity formation and eventually result in tooth loss.” Id. at 31.

6

Defendant Hipp refused to answer Plaintiff’s interrogatories asking “what conditions in the

7

mouth” cause the development of fatty plaque, whether “inflammation in the mouth causes

8

inflammation in the blood vessels,” what are the acceptable levels of fluoride required to

9

effectively treat tooth decay, and at what stage does inadequate oral health contribute to other

10

medical conditions, claiming that she was not an expert in the area and could not provide an

11

opinion on those subjects. Id. at 27-28, 31-32.

12

In the remaining proposed interrogatories, Plaintiff seeks information regarding CDCR

13

policies and procedures, “acceptable community standards” for types of treatment and care, and

14

various protocols and methodologies. The Court finds that supplemental Interrogatory No. 2 is

15

overbroad and seeks information that is not limited in time and to the issues in this case.

16

Supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9 are overbroad and seek information regarding

17

community standards, which is not the relevant standard for a section 1983 claim for deliberate

18

indifference to dental needs. Supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 13 seek information that

19

is irrelevant to the claims at issue in this case. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s request to

20

serve supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 2, 8-10, and 13. The Court grants Plaintiff’s requests to

21
22
7
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

serve supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 4,3 11, and 12.

2

2) Plaintiff’s Proposed Supplemental Interrogatories to Defendant Hensley

3

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hensley, a dentist at CMC, did not provide dental

4

treatment in a timely manner. ECF No. 32 at 3. Plaintiff contends that while Defendant Hensley

5

“efficiently identified [P]laintiff’s dental needs on April 29, 2011, and May 8, 2012,” he “failed to

6

provide treatment that would cure [P]laintiff’s dental needs.” Id. Specifically, Plaintiff claims

7

that on April 29, 2011, Defendant Hensley diagnosed him with three to four cavities and

8

prepared a Treatment Plan, but did not provide treatment. Id. at 8-9. Plaintiff further contends

9

that on May 8, 2012, Defendant Hensley saw Plaintiff, reviewed Plaintiff’s April 29, 2011

10

Treatment Plan, prepared a new Treatment Plan, which noted that Plaintiff had developed three

11

to four additional cavities, but failed to fill those cavities for at least fifteen months. Id. at 9.

12

Defendants claim in their opposition that they provided Plaintiff with information

13

regarding Defendant Hensley’s dental treatment by producing Plaintiff’s dental records and

14

Defendant Hensley’s interrogatory responses. Oppo. at 3. Defendant Hensley stated in his prior

15

interrogatory responses that during Plaintiff’s April 29, 2011 appointment:

16

X-rays were taken. On the Dental Examination and Treatment Plan Form, I
documented the need for fillings on teeth numbers 4 and 14, and assigned a dental
priority code of 3, which indicated that the work needed to be done within one
year. I noted which cavity was to be filled first. I also noted scaling to be
completed by February 28, 2012. I submitted the relevant documents for
processing and appointment setting by an office technician.

17
18
19
20

Reply, Exh. 8 at 58; see also id. at 59. Defendant Hensley further stated that Registered Dental

21
22
3

See supra note 2.
8
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

Assistant (“RDA”) Behrens assisted him during Plaintiff’s appointment on April 29, 2011, took

2

bite wing x-rays, and charted the gum pocket measurements and which teeth needed fillings as

3

determined by Defendant Hensley. Id. at 61-62. Further, Defendant Hensley responded to

4

Plaintiff’s interrogatory asking why he failed to ensure that Plaintiff’s “treatment needs were

5

met” after the April 29, 2011 appointment, by stating the following:

6

11

I was not able to set inmate appointments because I did not have access to
that computer program, and before the computer program, I did not have access
to scheduling inmates for appointments. Because I am assigned numerous
inmates, I am not able to monitor scheduling issues for individual inmates.
Additionally, it is not unusual for an inmate to be transferred to a different yard or
a different prison. In such a case, the appointment would be set with a different
dentist. I have never been aware of a problem with scheduling inmates for followup dental exams at CMC. On May 8, 2012, Plaintiff was on my schedule for an
annual exam, which would not allow enough time for fillings. I prepared a
new treatment plan, and assigned a dental priority code 2 so that the
treatment would be completed within four months.

12

Id. at 60. With regard to the May 8, 2012 appointment, Defendant Hensley also stated that he

13

examined Plaintiff’s teeth, noted the needed treatment and the time frame for the treatment,

14

prepared a Daily Dental Encounter Form, and “submitted the relevant documents for processing

15

and appointment setting by an office technician.” Id. at 59, 63. In response to Plaintiff’s

16

interrogatory asking to explain why Defendant Hensley’s “dental conclusions on May 8, 2012,

17

did not result in treatment [during] the eight months [Plaintiff] remained at CMC-East after that

18

exam,” Defendant Hensley stated that “he d[id] not know.” Id. at 63.

7
8
9
10

19

In response to Plaintiff’s interrogatory asking to explain “current and past” CMC-East’s

20

protocol(s) for processing treatment plans for inmates diagnosed with cavities, Defendant

21

Hensley stated that in 2011, “scheduling was not computerized,” and that office technicians

22

scheduled follow-up appointments “by hand from the paperwork submitted by the dentist.”
9
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

Reply, Exh. 8 at 58-59. He stated that in 2012, a dentist submitted relevant paperwork and an

2

office technician entered information into the computer to schedule inmate appointments. Id.

3

at 59. Defendant Hensley explained the terms “HBP,” “HTN,” “fatty plaque,” and “U.O.P

4

protocol,” stated that a patient’s vitals are taken before an exam to monitor the patient’s overall

5

health, and that Plaintiff’s blood pressure was within acceptable levels during his dental exams.

6

See Reply, Exh. 8 at 61-62, 64. Defendant Hensley also stated that Plaintiff’s Plaque Index of

7

38% on April 29, 2011, and 52% on May 8, 2012, indicated that Plaintiff’s plaque buildup

8

increased, but was still within an acceptable range, and that the increase could have been caused

9

by Plaintiff not brushing his teeth properly, eating sugary foods, or using certain drugs. Id. at

10

64. He also noted that although Plaintiff had more cavities in 2012 than in 2011, the condition

11

of Plaintiff’s gums improved. See id. at 63-65. Additionally, Defendant Hensley stated in his

12

prior interrogatory responses that the process of decay is gradual, and if left untreated, can

13

penetrate through the enamel layer into the softer tissue below, and that cavity causing bacteria

14

thrive on carbohydrates, especially sugars. Id. at 63-64. Finally, in response to Plaintiff’s

15

interrogatory asking whether there is a “link between periodontal infection and vascular

16

disease,” Defendant Hensley stated that “some studies show a link and some do not,” that he

17

was not an expert in this area, and refused to provide an opinion regarding the subject. Id. at

18

65.

19

The majority of Plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories seek relevant information regarding

20

Defendant Hensley’s assessment of Plaintiff’s dental condition on April 29, 2011 and May 8,

21

2012, the paperwork Defendant Hensley generated to schedule Plaintiff for a follow-up

22

treatment after his April 29, 2011 and May 8, 2012 appointments with Plaintiff, any oral hygiene
10
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

and plaque control training that Defendant Hensley might have provided to Plaintiff during those

2

appointments, and the time required to perform certain procedures.

3

interrogatories repeat prior requests, the Court will allow Plaintiff to serve those requests to the

4

extent they also seek new or clarifying information. The Court thus grants Plaintiff leave to

5

serve supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 1-34, 6-8, 10-13. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request to

6

serve Interrogatory Nos. 3-5 and 9 as they are repetitive of Plaintiff’s prior interrogatories, seek

7

information which already has been provided to Plaintiff, or seek irrelevant information.

While some of the

8

3) Plaintiff’s Proposed Supplemental Interrogatories to Defendant Sabati

9

Plaintiff claims in his FAC that Defendant Sabati, a Dentist at Richard J. Donovan

10

Correctional Facility (“RJD”), failed to provide dental treatment in a timely manner. ECF No. 32

11

at 5. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sabati examined him on February 11, 2013,

12

reviewed Plaintiff’s Treatment Plans dated April 29, 2011, and May 8, 2012, and noted seven

13

untreated cavities. Id. at 5, 10. Plaintiff further contends that on February 11, 2013, he

14

submitted a request to fill those cavities, that Defendant Sabati “promised” to fill the cavities

15

within 30 days, but failed to do so. Id.

16

Defendants assert that Defendant Sabati saw Plaintiff on February 11, 2013, shortly after

17

Plaintiff’s transfer to RJD, that Plaintiff’s appointment was a 72-hour triage appointment, and

18

that Defendant Sabati noted that Plaintiff’s May 8, 2012 Treatment Plan needed to be completed.

19

Oppo. at 5. With respect to the February 11, 2013 appointment with Plaintiff, Defendant Sabati

20
21
22

4

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s proposed supplemental interrogatories to Defendant Hensley
contain two Interrogatories No. 3. See Mot. at 23-24. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request to
serve the first one seeking changes to the April 29, 2011 treatment plan and grants the request
as to the second one seeking the names of technicians.
11
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

stated in a prior interrogatory response that:

2

[d]ue to the passage of time, I do not recall the appointment, but progress notes
indicate that this was not a regular dental appointment, but a 72 hour triage
appointment, which means an appointment shortly after an inmate is transferred
to a new prison to generally a[ss]ess dental needs. The progress note indicates
that I asked that a completion of Plaintiff’s May 8, 2012 treatment plan be
scheduled. The progress note also indicates that I had 11 other patients on my
schedule that day; thus, I would not have been able to perform an annual dental
exam at that time.

3
4
5
6
7

Reply, Exh. 7 at 50. Defendant Sabati further stated that on February 11, 2013, RDA Mendoza

8

assisted him with Plaintiff’s exam, and that an office technician was responsible for “entering

9

the information into the computer and scheduling [Plaintiff’s follow-up] appointment.” Id. at

10

49-50.

11

Defendant Sabati also stated that a cavity forms when decay goes through the tooth’s

12

hard surface layer, that decay could subsequently reach the softer layers of the tooth, and

13

defined the term “Plaque Index of 52%.” Id. at 51, 53. Defendant Sabati explained that bacteria

14

are always present in a person’s mouth, that bacteria in plaque produce acids, that tooth decay

15

does not develop into plaque, and that untreated tooth decay does not produce bacteria, but

16

can progress to cavity formation and eventually result in tooth loss. Id. at 51-53. Defendant

17

Sabati also stated that a person’s diet, consistency of the tooth structure, and daily oral hygiene

18

may affect the time frame for “the acids in plaque to begin removing minerals in the tooth’s

19

hard, outer enamel”/“bacteria to build up on teeth in order to make gums prone to infection,”

20

and result in gum inflammation. See id. at 52-53. Defendant Sabati refused to answer Plaintiff’s

21

interrogatory seeking the names of eleven patients that he was scheduled to see on February 11,

22

2013, on relevance, proportionality, privacy and confidentiality grounds. Id. at 49.
12
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

The Court notes that some of the proposed requests assume facts which may not be

2

accurate and/or somewhat repetitive, however, the Court will allow the requests to the extent

3

they seek new or clarifying relevant information. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request

4

to serve proposed supplemental Interrogatory No. 6 but grants Plaintiff’s request as to the

5

remaining interrogatories.

6

4) Plaintiff’s Proposed Supplemental Interrogatories to Defendant Nguyen

7

Plaintiff alleges in his FAC that Defendant Nguyen, a Dentist at RJD, failed to provide

8

dental treatment in a timely manner. ECF No. 32 at 6. In support, Plaintiff contends that on

9

January 14,5 2014, Defendant Nguyen examined him, reviewed Plaintiff’s May 8, 2012 Treatment

10

Plan, was “made aware” that Plaintiff had seven untreated cavities and was in pain, received

11

Plaintiff’s request to fill the cavities, but failed to provide treatment for approximately fourteen

12

months. See id. Plaintiff further contends that on December 30, 2014, Defendant Nguyen

13

conducted a dental examination in response to Plaintiff’s 602 appeal, noted that Plaintiff had

14

developed ten to fifteen new cavities and a white lesion on the left side of his lower lip, and

15

submitted an urgent request for a specialist examination of the lesion. Id. at 12. On January 16,

16

2015, Defendant Nguyen saw Plaintiff during a follow-up examination, and on February 24,

17

2015, extracted Plaintiff’s lower left tooth. Id. at 13.

18

Defendants claim that Defendant Nguyen requested that Plaintiff be scheduled for

19

additional treatment within one week of Plaintiff’s January 27, 2014 appointment, that he

20
21
22

5

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s initial interrogatories served on Defendant Nguyen, Defendant
Nguyen’s answers, and Plaintiff’s supplemental interrogatories directed to Defendant Nguyen list
January 27, 2014 as the date of Plaintiff’s appointment with Defendant Nguyen. See Mot.,
Exh. 4 at 29-33; Reply, Exh. 9 at 70-71.
13
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

interviewed Plaintiff on December 30, 2014 regarding Plaintiff’s grievance, examined Plaintiff,

2

and generated a new treatment plan, and that Plaintiff started receiving dental care shortly

3

thereafter until it was complete. Oppo. at 5. In his prior interrogatory responses Defendant

4

Nguyen stated that on January 27, 2014, he saw Plaintiff and determined that Plaintiff’s

5

treatment plan was over a year-and-a-half old, that he offered to perform another exam, and

6

that Plaintiff agreed. See Reply, Exh. 9 at 71-72. Defendant Nguyen also stated that he directed

7

on the Daily Encounter Form dated January 27, 2014, that Plaintiff be scheduled to come back

8

in one week, specified that the appointment should be set for February 4, 2014, and “submitted

9

the form to the office technicians for processing.” Id. at 70. Defendant Nguyen also stated that

10

RDA Rubacava assisted him on January 27, 2014. Id. at 71.

11

Further, Defendant Nguyen stated that on December 30, 2014, he interviewed Plaintiff in

12

connection with Plaintiff’s grievance RJD Log No. HC 14052486, completed a dental exam,

13

generated a new treatment plan, and discussed the treatment plan with Plaintiff. Reply, Exh. 9

14

at 72, 76. In response to Plaintiff’s interrogatory asking to specify the date and names of dental

15

personnel who failed to enter Plaintiff’s previous treatment plan at CMC into the computer,

16

Defendant Nguyen stated that the previous treatment plan would have been entered at CMC

17

shortly after the treatment plan was submitted, and that he “ha[d] no idea who would have

18

been involved.” Id. at 75. Defendant Nguyen further stated that Plaintiff was seen for dental

19

treatment on January 6, 2015, and continued to receive dental treatment until his treatment

20

plan was complete. Id. at 76.

21

Defendant Nguyen also stated in his prior interrogatory answers that pursuant to CDCR’s

22

and/or RJD’s policies and procedures, “[r]elevant findings are recorded in the patient’s dental
14
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

records.” Id. at 74. Defendant Nguyen refused to answer Plaintiff’s interrogatory asking to

2

“[e]xplain any and all policies or procedures within RJDCF for the number of patients on a dentist

3

daily schedule” on relevance and proportionality grounds. Id. Defendant Nguyen also refused

4

to provide scheduling/or appointment data for inmate annual examinations scheduled for

5

December 30, 2014, and his conclusions about inmate R. Ware’s First Level Health Care Appeal,

6

claiming that such information was not relevant, not proportional to the needs of the case, and

7

violated privacy and confidentiality rights of third parties.

8

Defendant Nguyen stated in his prior interrogatory answers that swelling in the mouth does not

9

“in and of itself” make the gums prone to infection, could have little effect on a person’s oral

10

health, or could cause discomfort, and listed various conditions that can cause pain in the mouth.

11

Id. at 70-72.

See id. at 72-73, 75.

Finally,

12

The majority of the proposed interrogatories seek relevant follow-up information

13

concerning Plaintiff’s January 27, 2014 appointment, whether Plaintiff received any instructions

14

in oral hygiene and plaque control during the appointment, what paperwork Defendant Nguyen

15

was required to generate concerning the appointment, and the definition of terms or procedures.

16

Again, the Court notes that some of the proposed interrogatories assume facts which may not

17

be accurate and/or somewhat repetitive, however, the Court will allow the requests to the extent

18

they seek new or clarifying relevant information. The Court thus grants Plaintiff’s request to

19

serve supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3-96, 11-19. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request as to

20
21
To the extent Interrogatory No. 8 seeks information about dental patients other than Plaintiff,
it is denied. The Court grants Interrogatory No. 8 only to the extent it requests information
about Plaintiff’s dental care.
6

22

15
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

1

Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 10 as they seek irrelevant information or are duplicative.

2

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

3

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

4

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve supplemental interrogatories. The Court directs that the

5

proposed supplemental interrogatories authorized by this order are deemed served as of the

6

date of this order. Defendants must answer the authorized interrogatories by March 24, 2017:

7

1) Defendant Hipp must answer Plaintiff’s supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3-7, 11-

8

12;

9
10

2) Defendant Hensley must answer Plaintiff’s supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, 6-8,
10-13;

11

3) Defendant Sabati must answer Plaintiff’s supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 1-5, 7-14;

12

4) Defendant Nguyen must answer Plaintiff’s supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3-9, 11-

13
14

19.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: 2/23/2017

17
18
19
20
21
22
16
15cv1871-LAB (BLM)