-JLT (PC) Huskey v. Ahlin et al, No. 1:2009cv01576 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 34 Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/1/2012. Plaintiff shall provide further responses to the discovery requests within fourteen (14) days of service of this order. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 KENNETH ROBERT HUSKEY, Case No.: 1:09-cv-01576 AWI JLT (PC) Plaintiff 12 13 vs. 14 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PAM AHLIN, et al., 15 Defendants. (Docs. 34 and 35). 16 17 On September 8, 2009, Plaintiff initiated this civil rights action against several 18 Defendants. (Doc. 1). Defendant Lasley “Lasley” is the only remaining defendant. On April 16, 19 2012, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to various interrogatories and 20 requests for production. (Doc. 34). On April 20, 2012, Defendant filed a supplement to its initial 21 motion, in which Defendant withdrew its motion as to certain interrogatories that Plaintiff had 22 adequately responded to after Defendant filed his initial motion to compel. (Doc. 35). Plaintiff 23 has not responded to Defendant’s motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 24 Defendant’s motion in part and DENIES Defendant’s motion in part. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 26 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any 27 party’s claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information for the purposes of 28 discovery is any information that is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 1 1 evidence.” Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992). 2 District courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery purposes. Surfvivor 3 Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005). 4 A party may propound interrogatories relating to any matter that may be inquired into 5 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). In turn, the responding party 6 is obligated to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest extent possible, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). The 8 responding party shall use common sense and reason in its responses; hyper-technical, quibbling, 9 or evasive objections will not be viewed favorably by the court. Haney v. Saldana, No. 1:04-cv- 10 5935-AWI-SMS PC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93447, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2010). 11 A party may also serve on any other party a request to produce “any designated 12 documents . . . which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request 13 is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Documents are in the “possession, custody, or control” of the 14 served party if “the party has actual possession, custody, or control, or has the legal right to obtain 15 the documents on demand.” In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995). The party 16 to whom the request is directed must respond in writing that inspection will be permitted as 17 requested, or must state an objection to the request, including the reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 34(b)(2). 19 If the party requesting discovery is dissatisfied with any of the responses, the party may 20 move to compel further responses by informing the court “which discovery requests are the 21 subject of [the] motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the [c]ourt why the 22 information sought is relevant and why [the opposing party’s] objections are not justified.” Ellis 23 v. Cambra, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109050, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). See also Randle v. 24 Franklin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89905, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2010) (explaining the Eastern 25 District of California’s minimum standards on a motion to compel); Brooks v. Alameida, 2009 26 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9568, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) (noting that unless the court is informed 27 which responses the moving party seeks to compel or on what grounds, the court cannot grant the 28 motion to compel). 2 1 2 II. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL A. Further Responses to Interrogatories 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 15, and 17. 3 Interrogatories Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 4 These interrogatories relate to allegations in paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s complaint that 1) 5 “[o]n or about April 1, 2009, Plaintiff informed Defendant Lasley that he had lost two filings and 6 asked Lasley to schedule Plaintiff for a dentist appointment right away;” 2) that Lasley scheduled 7 a dental appointment for Plaintiff on May 5, 2009; and 3) that Plaintiff thereafter “offered to pay 8 for emergency care and to be transported to a dentist . . . ” (Doc. 8 at 5). Interrogatory No.3 asks 9 Plaintiff to identify any witnesses who had knowledge that he informed Defendant Lasley that he 10 had lost two filings. Interrogatory No. 4 asks Plaintiff to identify any witnesses who had 11 knowledge that he requested Lasley to schedule a dentist appointment for him. Interrogatory No. 12 6 asks Plaintiff to identify the date he was informed about the May 5, 2009 dental appointment. 13 Interrogatory No. 7 asks Plaintiff to identify witnesses who had knowledge that Plaintiff offered 14 to pay for emergency care to the dentist. Interrogatory No. 9 asks Plaintiff whether he told Lasley 15 he would not pay for transportation for the dental appointment. (Doc. 34-2 at 6-7). 16 Plaintiff initially objected to all of these interrogatories as overly broad and burdensome. 17 (Doc. 34-2 at 6-7 and 18-19). Plaintiff’s supplemental responses to Interrogatories 3, 4, and 7, are 18 virtually identical and do not contain objections: 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff avers that at every stage of the administrative appeal process, each defendant named (including Lasley) was informed of the suffering plaintiff was undergoing, of his desire to pay for his own dental care if it could be obtained sooner, and of the unconstitutional delay in treatment that caused an infection. Those defendants include Kyle Lasley, Kate Kanaley, Dr. Pham, Warren Rogers, Daniel Wagoner, Audrey King and Pam Ahlin. 23 (Doc. 35-1 at 5-8). 24 Plaintiff’s supplement response to Interrogatory No. 9 similarly states, “Plaintiff avers that at 25 every stage of the appeal process, each defendant named in this proceeding, including defendants 26 Kyle Lasley, Kate Kanaley, Dr. Pham, Warren Rogers, Daniel Wagoner, Audrey King and Pam 27 Ahlin, received a copy of the appeal Plaintiff served them, including Plaintiff’s offer to pay for 28 emergency dental care if CSH would transport him to Coalinga.” (Doc. 35-1 at 7-8). 3 1 Interrogatories 3, 4, 7, and 9 are very specific in that they ask Plaintiff to identify any 2 witnesses to the statements he allegedly made to Defendant Lasley on or about April 1, 2009 3 regarding his filings, scheduling an appointment, and paying for emergency care and to confirm 4 or deny statements he made to Lasley about paying for transportation to a dental visit. (Doc. 34-2 5 at 6-7; Doc. 35-1 at 5-8). Plaintiff’s response that all named Defendants were aware of his 6 injuries may accurately respond to the question of “who became aware of Plaintiff’s allegations 7 that he made statements regarding his filings, etc.” 8 address the specific information requested by the interrogatory; namely, identification of the 9 persons who witnessed or were present during the April 1, 2009 conversation with Lasley and 10 whether Plaintiff made certain statements to Lasley about paying for transportation, as alleged in 11 the First Amended Complaint at paragraph 14. (Id.) However, such a response does not 12 Defendant’s request, in Interrogatory No. 6, that Plaintiff identify the date he was 13 informed of the May 5, 2009 dental appointment is likewise specific and direct. Plaintiff’s failure 14 to object on the basis that the interrogatory is burdensome does not have merit. (Docs. 34-2 at 7; 15 35-1 at 6). 16 17 As a result, Defendant’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatories 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 are GRANTED.. 18 Interrogatories Nos. 10-11, and 13 19 These interrogatories relate to allegations in paragraph 25 of Plaintiff’s complaint that 1) 20 “[o]n or about April 1, 2009, Plaintiff lost two filings and complained immediately to medical 21 staff 5; 2) that he complained immediately to medical staff 5 that he could not eat hot, cold, or 22 hard food due to the missing fillings; and 3) that he complained of pain, loss of sound sleep and 23 the need for emergency dental care to medical staff 5. (Doc. 8 at 7). Interrogatory No. 10 asks 24 Plaintiff to identify all witnesses who had knowledge that he complained to the medical staff 25 about losing two filings. Interrogatory No. 11 asks Plaintiffs to identify all witness who had 26 knowledge that he complained to medical staff about not being able to eat as a result of the lost 27 filings. Interrogatory No. 13, asks Plaintiff to identify all witnesses who had knowledge that he 28 4 1 complained to medical staff about pain, loss of sleep, and the need for emergency dental care. 2 (Doc. at 34-2 at 7-8). 3 Plaintiff initially responded to all of these interrogatories as overly broad and burdensome. Like Plaintiffs responses to Interrogatories 3, 4, and 7, Plaintiff’s 4 (Doc. 34-2 at 20-21). 5 supplemental responses indicate that all named defendants became aware of such allegations 6 through the appeal process. (Doc. 35-1 at 5-7). For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s 7 response to Defendant’s direct question is insufficient. Thus, Defendant’s motion to compel a 8 further response to Interrogatories 10-11 and 13 are GRANTED. 9 Interrogatories 15 and 17 10 These interrogatories ask Plaintiff about witnesses who can testify to Plaintiff’s claims 11 that he “suffered constantly” due to lack of dental care or who have knowledge of any damages 12 he allegedly sustained due to Lasley’s actions. Plaintiff again responds by stating that all named 13 Defendants became aware of his allegations via the appeal process. (Doc. 35-1 at 9-10). Because 14 Plaintiff’s response does not respond to the question asked, Defendant’s motion to compel a 15 further response to Interrogatories 15 and 17 are GRANTED. 16 B. Requests for Production 17 Defendant seeks to compel further responses to its Request for Production Nos. 1-17. 18 (Doc. 34-2 at 12-14). Plaintiff has responded to Defendant’s request for production of documents 19 by citing to paragraphs in his complaint and various exhibits attached thereto. Plaintiff responded 20 to Requests for Production Nos. 1-3,5-9, and 14-15 in this manner and only objected to No. 16 21 and 17, as overbroad and burdensome. (Doc. 34-2 at 26-31). Defendant acknowledges that he 22 has access to the documents referenced by Plaintiff, but wants Plaintiff to confirm that these are 23 the only documents responsive to his respective requests and that “production will be permitted.” 24 (Doc. 34-1 at 12). 25 documents,” and Plaintiff has only chosen to set forth the Exhibits attached to his Complaint, he 26 is bound by his response. Given that Defendant’s Request for Production No. 1-15 seeks “all 27 Additionally, Plaintiff’s Responses to Request Nos. 4, and 10-13 indicates that “verbal 28 communication is not documented.” Defendant asserts that a Plaintiff should be compelled to 5 1 respond that “no such documents exist” if that is the case. (Doc. 34-1 at 12; Doc. 34-2 at 27, 29- 2 30). Despite Defendant’s arguments to the contrary, the Court finds Plaintiff’s response to 3 Request Nos. 4, and 10-13 sufficiently indicates that there are no other documents that exist.1 4 Thus, the motion as to these requests are DENIED. 5 Request for Production No. 16 6 This request asks Plaintiff to produce all documents supporting his claim for damages. 7 (Doc.34-2 at 31). Plaintiff objects to the request as overbroad and burdensome and cites to the 8 allegations in his Complaint at paragraphs 11-12. While the phrasing of the Request is somewhat 9 broad, Plaintiff is required to respond to the extent possible. Thus, the motion as to this request is 10 GRANTED. 11 Request for Production No. 17 12 This request asks Plaintiff to produce all documents relating to his lawsuit. (Doc. 34-2 at 13 31). Plaintiff objects to the request as overbroad and burdensome and cites to his Complaint.2 14 Given the number of allegations raised by Plaintiff in his complaint, the Court concludes that this 15 request is overbroad. Thus, the motion as to this request is DENIED. 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 In accordance with the above, the Court ORDERS that 18 1. Defendant’s April 16, 2012 motion to compel further responses, supplemented on 19 April 20, 2012, (Docs. 34 and 35) is GRANTED as to Interrogatories 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 20 13, 15 and 17. 21 2. Defendant’s April 16, 2012 motion to compel further response to his Request for 22 Production of Documents (Doc. 34) is GRANTED as to Request for Production 23 number 16. 24 3. As to document production requests 1-15 and 17, the motion is DENIED. 25 1 26 27 28 Plaintiff is advised that he will be permitted to use at trial or in response to motions only documents that have been produced in discovery. His failure to produce documents will preclude any use of such documents in this proceeding. 2 Plaintiff is advised that his complaint is not evidence and cannot be relied upon to support his claim. 6 1 4. Plaintiff SHALL provide further responses to the discovery requests describe above 2 within 14 days of service of this order. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6 August 1, 2012 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 DEAC_Signature-END: 9j7khijed 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.