×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Court Orders California Prison Officials to produce Document In Response To Discovery Request
U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Hollows has ordered prison officials in a suit alleging inadequate medical care to turn over various documents not provided in response to requests for discovery.
Victor Carrasquillo, a California state prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 action against prison officials alleging that he was denied adequate medical care. Carrasquillo hurt his wrist playing in a football game at California State Prison-Sacramento, New Tolsom. Carrasquillo was taken to the hospital, received a temporary splint, and was instructed to return in three to five days to see an orthopedic specialist.
Carrasquillo was seen by a prison physician a few days after the incident and was assured that an appointment with an orthopedic specialist would be made within two days. The appointment did not happen for another 30 days. By then, it was discovered that Carrasquillo’s wrist had healed improperly. Corrective surgery did not occur for another five months.
Carrasquillo sought various documents through discovery to support his claims. After the defendants failed to produce the documents, Carrasquillo moved to compel. The court granted the motion in part. The district court later granted the defedants’ unopposed motions for summary judgment and dismissed the case. See: Carrasquillo v. Penner, USDC, E.D. Cal., No. CIV S-06-0851 JAM GGH P (June 12, 2008 and Jan. 15, 2009).
Victor Carrasquillo, a California state prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 action against prison officials alleging that he was denied adequate medical care. Carrasquillo hurt his wrist playing in a football game at California State Prison-Sacramento, New Tolsom. Carrasquillo was taken to the hospital, received a temporary splint, and was instructed to return in three to five days to see an orthopedic specialist.
Carrasquillo was seen by a prison physician a few days after the incident and was assured that an appointment with an orthopedic specialist would be made within two days. The appointment did not happen for another 30 days. By then, it was discovered that Carrasquillo’s wrist had healed improperly. Corrective surgery did not occur for another five months.
Carrasquillo sought various documents through discovery to support his claims. After the defendants failed to produce the documents, Carrasquillo moved to compel. The court granted the motion in part. The district court later granted the defedants’ unopposed motions for summary judgment and dismissed the case. See: Carrasquillo v. Penner, USDC, E.D. Cal., No. CIV S-06-0851 JAM GGH P (June 12, 2008 and Jan. 15, 2009).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Carrasquillo v. Penner
| Year | 2008 |
|---|---|
| Cite | USDC, E.D. Cal., No. CIV S-06-0851 JAM GGH P |
| Level | District Court |
VICTOR CARRASQUILLO, Plaintiff, vs. MONTE PENNER, et al., Defendants.
No. CIV S-06-0851 JAM GGH P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 12, 2008, Decided
June 12, 2008, Filed
COUNSEL: [*1] Victor Carrasquillo, Plaintiff, Pro se, Represa, CA.
For Monte Penner, Defendant: Dayton Van Vranken Longyear, Jennifer, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Longyear O'Dea and Lavra, LLP, Sacramento, CA.
For R. Marquard, Defendant: Andreas Oliver Garza, California Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA.
JUDGES: GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
OPINION BY: GREGORY G. HOLLOWS
OPINION
ORDER
Introduction
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are: 1) plaintiff's motion to compel responses to his first set of production of documents, filed on October 16, 2007, to which neither defendant filed an opposition; 2) defendant Marquard's motion for summary judgment, filed on January 3, 2008, to which plaintiff filed no opposition; 3) plaintiff's February 11, 2008, unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a response to defendant Marquard's dispositive motion until after plaintiff's motion to compel is adjudicated, which the court construes as a motion for a continuance, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f); 4) defendant Penner's motion for summary judgment, filed on April 10, 2008, 1 to which no opposition was filed.
FOOTNOTES
1 Defendant Penner [*2] was granted an extension of time to file a summary judgment motion, by Order filed on February 14, 2008.
Because, after reviewing the unopposed motion to compel, the court finds that defendants have been deficient in their responses to some of plaintiff's requests for production of documents, the separate motions for summary judgment will be vacated without prejudice subject to being re-noticed as set forth below.
Amended Complaint
This matter proceeds on the amended complaint (AC), filed on October 20, 2008. 2 Named as defendants are Dr. Monte Penner and Registered Nurse (RN) R. Marquard. Plaintiff claims that these defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by delaying treatment of his medical needs, thereby subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment. AC, 1-4.
FOOTNOTES
2 By Order, filed on October 5, 2006, the claims against a number of defendants were dismissed with leaved to amend from the original complaint, which was filed on April 20, 2006.
On February 26, 2005, plaintiff injured his wrist at California State Prison-Sacramento, New Folsom (CSP-Sac) in a football game. Plaintiff was diagnosed as having a broken wrist and given an unspecified injection and a wrist protector [*3] by non-defendant RN Olsen. On Feb. 28, 2005, non-defendant x-ray technician R. Demarco x-rayed the wrist and confirmed that plaintiff's wrist was broken, after which plaintiff was transported to Doctors' Hospital in Manteca where RN Rose, not a defendant, applied a temporary half-splint, telling plaintiff he should return within three to five days to be seen by an orthopedic specialist. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff was provided exit care instructions at Doctors' Hospital on Feb. 28, 2005, and CSP-Sac medical staff received instructions from the hospital on March 1, 2005, stating: "Ice elevate call for ortho clinic this week to make an appointment." Plaintiff was seen by defendant Penner on March 1, 2005, and on March 7, 2005. Plaintiff explained to defendant Penner and an unmamed medical technical assistant (MTA), three days after the removable splint had been placed on him, that the fiber glass half-splint was beginning to bend back against his wrist and that he was afraid this would cause his wrist bone to mend at an awkward angle. Plaintiff also explained that the half-splint's flexibility was a problem when he was asleep or made an unconscious movement. Plaintiff suffered extreme pain and [*4] sleep deprivation nightly when he repositioned himself in bed. Id. at 4-5.
On plaintiff's visit on March 7, 2005, with defendant Penner, Dr. Penner called Doctors' Hospital and noted that a clerk named Jessica would call RN Rose at the CSP-Sac consult desk to arrange for plaintiff to be seen at the ortho clinic in two days. Defendant R. Marquard began the process for the appointment that was to occur on March 9, 2005, but did not complete the process. Id. at 5.
On plaintiff's March 30, 2005, follow-up visit with non-defendant Williams, it was found that plaintiff had a "mal-union of the right distal radius with displacement," and referred plaintiff to U.C. Davis (UCD). On May 5, 2005, at UCD, non-defendant Dr. Allen recommended corrective surgery, originally scheduled for July 22, 2005, but which was later re-scheduled by UCD. The surgery eventually occurred on August 29, 2005. Another follow-up appointment was scheduled within the next month. Id.
Plaintiff seeks money damages, including punitive damages, for the defendants' alleged failure to provide adequate medical treatment and/or for the delay in treatment, resulting in the unnecessary, wanton infliction of pain. Plaintiff claims [*5] the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Id. at 6-7.
Motion to Compel
Plaintiff seeks documents in response to his thirteen requests for production directed to defendants. Defendants have posited only objections to each request, providing no production whatever. Motion to Compel (MTC), 1-5 & Exhibit (Exh.) A. Defendants, as noted, filed no response to the motion.
Any party has the right to discovery of "any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party?." ; thus, the scope of discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) is broad. Discovery may be sought of relevant information not admissible at trial "if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. The court, however, may limit discovery if it "?.is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative," or can be obtained from another source "that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; or if the party who seeks discovery "has had ample opportunity by discovery ?to obtain the information sought"; or if the proposed discovery is overly burdensome. Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(i), (ii) and (iii).
As to request no. 1, wherein plaintiff [*6] seeks copies of all California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Title 15 Sections "regarding medical health services that are determined by the physician to be reasonable and necessary to protect life, prevent significant illness or disability, or alleviate severe pain," to which request defendants posited objections as overbroad and on the basis that Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations is available to plaintiff in the prison law library (MTC, Exh. A., p. 9), the court agrees that plaintiff should have access other than through defendants to those regulations and will deny the motion as to that request.
In request no. 2, plaintiff seeks documents other than those sought in the previous request which reference or contain "the current and previous guidelines relevant" to CDCR "medical health services." Id. Although the objection is somewhat grammatically garbled, the court agrees with defendants' assertion that the request is overbroad and will not require production in response to such a wide-ranging request.
In request no. 3, plaintiff seeks:
Copies of any and all internal documents, notes, records, recordings medical x-rays [sic] sheets, including any and [*7] all true names and identities of those medical employees who seen [sic], examine [sic] and or made appointments but not limited to follow-ups relevant to plaintiff[']s complaint.
Response: Objection. The documents referred to are in plaintiff's medical file, which plaintiff has access to at his institution.
MTC at 10.
The court finds this response to be inadequate. The undersigned is aware of no rule or authority which provides for plaintiff's access to his medical records equivalent to that of the defendants, nor do defendants cite any. The motion as to this request will be granted. In granting this request, the court also grants request nos. 10, 11 and 13, to the extent that, in response to each, defendants refer plaintiff to his medical records which they assert are equally available to him. Defendants, within thirty days, will be required either to provide the medical records plaintiff seeks or confirm to the court that plaintiff has been granted access to his medical records.
In request no. 4, plaintiff requests copies of any and all civil complaints filed against the defendants, seeking all relevant "case numbers, case citations, settlements, court rulings and or jury verdicts against [*8] defendants?not limited to the medical services complaints of CSP-Sacramento prisoners?."
Defendants posit the following response: "Objection. This request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence." MTC at 10. While settlements would certainly not be relevant and the term "court rulings" is too amorphous to credit, the relevance of any jury verdict in any case of medical malpractice brought against either defendant is at least arguable in the context of plaintiff's claims, and defendants have failed to file a comprehensive objection or any opposition to the motion. Therefore, if any complaints concerning medical care provided by defendants have been brought to a jury verdict, defendants must produce those documents to plaintiff within thirty days.
In request no. 5, plaintiff seeks:
Copies of any and all documented doctor orders, recommendations, records, files[,] notes, but not limited to recordings relevant to and or [sic] would be useful to plaintiff[']s complaint against the defendants.
Response: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendants cannot determine what plaintiff believes is useful to plaintiff's complaint [*9] and therefore cannot respond to this request.
MTC at 10.
Defendants could also have asserted that the request is speculative. The motion as to this request will be denied.
In request no. 6, plaintiff seeks:
Copies of any and all guidelines giving the time frame to reset broken wrist bone, but not limited to hands, fingers, arms, including the side effects, conditions received once time limit has expired calling for corrective surgery to be done.
Response: Objection. This request is overbroad. All guidelines which address the treatment of broken wrist bones, hands, fingers, arms, etc., are to [sic] voluminous to produce and require the production of medical text books, periodicals and other such documents. Defendants will therefore not respond to this request.
MTC at 11.
In addition, to its overbreadth, the request, essentially and inappropriately, asks defendants to conduct research on his behalf. The motion to compel as to this request will be denied.
Request No. 7
Copies of any and all internal documents, notes, records, recordings but not limited to the protocol(s) showing violations in giving or delaying medical treatment to plaintiff[']s broken wrist bone.
Response:
Objection. This request [*10] is argumentative. Defendants deny there has been any violation in giving or delaying medical treatment to plaintiff's broken wrist bone, if there was such a broken wrist. Defendants will therefore not respond to this request.
MTC at 11.
Although the request borders on the unintelligible, to the extent that defendants appeared to have deciphered it, the objection is not sufficient. Defendants may inform plaintiff that there are no such documents in their custody, possession or control, and that they believe no such documents exist, but may not simply refuse to respond on the basis that the request might be argumentative. The undersigned observes that it is likely that access to his own medical records may satisfy this request. In any event, the motion for a further response as to this request will be granted.
As to request no. 8, wherein plaintiff references "the basis of federal receiver taking over CSP-Sacramento medical services of all prisoners," is, as defendants assert, irrelevant, as well as ambiguous to the point of unintelligibility. Also unintelligible is plaintiff's awkwardly framed request no. 9. MTC at 11. The motion will be denied as to these requests.
As to request no. 12, [*11] wherein plaintiff seeks copies of ducat sheets showing that on Feb. 26, 2005, he was playing in an approved football tournament before his wrist was broken, defendants indicate that they have no access to any such ducat sheets (MTC at 13), and the court will not direct a further response.
Motion for Continuance
Plaintiff seeks an extension of time, or a continuance, for the filing of his opposition to defendant Marquard's motion for summary judgment (and by extension, defendant Penner's later filed dispositive motion). The court construes plaintiff's motion as filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), on grounds that defendants have not provided adequate responses/production to his requests for production of documents.
Rule 56(f) provides that if a party opposing a summary judgment motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify the opposition the court may deny the motion or order a continuance. As the court has granted plaintiff's motion to compel in part, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has made an adequate showing to warrant a continuance.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's unopposed motion to compel further [*12] response/production as to his first set of production of documents, filed on October 16, 2007 (# 19), is granted as to request nos. 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, to the extent set forth above, and denied as to request nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12.
2. Plaintiff's February 11, 2008 (# 24), unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to defendant Marquard's summary judgment motion, construed as a motion for a continuance pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), is granted.
3. Defendants are, within thirty (30) days, to file proof of having provided the medical records plaintiff seeks or confirm to the court that plaintiff has otherwise been granted access to his medical records.
4. Defendant Marquard's motion for summary judgment, filed on January 3, 2008 (# 21), and defendant Penner's motion for summary judgment, filed on April 10, 2008 (# 26), are hereby vacated without prejudice to being re-noticed once defendants have filed proof of having served the further responses/production as directed herein.
DATED: 06/12/08
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR CARRASQUILLO, Plaintiff, vs. MONTE PENNER, et al., Defendants.
No. CIV S-06-0851 JAM GGH P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 14, 2009, Decided
January 15, 2009, Filed
COUNSEL: [*1] Victor Carrasquillo, Plaintiff, Pro se, Represa, CA.
For Monte Penner, Defendant: Dayton Van Vranken Longyear, LEAD ATTORNEY, Longyear O'Dea and Lavra, LLP, Sacramento, CA; Jennifer Marquez, LEAD ATTORNEY, Longyear O'Dea and Lavra, Sacramento, CA.
For R. Marquard, Defendant: Andreas Oliver Garza, California Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA.
JUDGES: John A. Mendez , UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY: John A. Mendez
OPINION
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.
On November 13, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 1
FOOTNOTES
1 Plaintiff's post hoc objections do not provide even a belated substantive opposition to the dispositive motions; instead, plaintiff simply asserts that a lack of legal assistance from library clerks has precluded [*2] his ability to respond. Plaintiff at a minimum does not demonstrate how any such assistance was required for plaintiff to attempt to dispute any of the "undisputed material facts" as set forth by the defendants, and to raise a genuine issue of material fact.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed November 13, 2008, are adopted in full; and
2. Defendant Marquard's motion for summary judgment, filed July 21, 2008 (Docket # 31), and defendant Penner's motion for summary judgment, filed July 22, 2008 (Docket # 32), are granted, and this case is hereby closed.
DATED: January 14, 2009
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
No. CIV S-06-0851 JAM GGH P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 12, 2008, Decided
June 12, 2008, Filed
COUNSEL: [*1] Victor Carrasquillo, Plaintiff, Pro se, Represa, CA.
For Monte Penner, Defendant: Dayton Van Vranken Longyear, Jennifer, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Longyear O'Dea and Lavra, LLP, Sacramento, CA.
For R. Marquard, Defendant: Andreas Oliver Garza, California Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA.
JUDGES: GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
OPINION BY: GREGORY G. HOLLOWS
OPINION
ORDER
Introduction
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are: 1) plaintiff's motion to compel responses to his first set of production of documents, filed on October 16, 2007, to which neither defendant filed an opposition; 2) defendant Marquard's motion for summary judgment, filed on January 3, 2008, to which plaintiff filed no opposition; 3) plaintiff's February 11, 2008, unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a response to defendant Marquard's dispositive motion until after plaintiff's motion to compel is adjudicated, which the court construes as a motion for a continuance, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f); 4) defendant Penner's motion for summary judgment, filed on April 10, 2008, 1 to which no opposition was filed.
FOOTNOTES
1 Defendant Penner [*2] was granted an extension of time to file a summary judgment motion, by Order filed on February 14, 2008.
Because, after reviewing the unopposed motion to compel, the court finds that defendants have been deficient in their responses to some of plaintiff's requests for production of documents, the separate motions for summary judgment will be vacated without prejudice subject to being re-noticed as set forth below.
Amended Complaint
This matter proceeds on the amended complaint (AC), filed on October 20, 2008. 2 Named as defendants are Dr. Monte Penner and Registered Nurse (RN) R. Marquard. Plaintiff claims that these defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by delaying treatment of his medical needs, thereby subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment. AC, 1-4.
FOOTNOTES
2 By Order, filed on October 5, 2006, the claims against a number of defendants were dismissed with leaved to amend from the original complaint, which was filed on April 20, 2006.
On February 26, 2005, plaintiff injured his wrist at California State Prison-Sacramento, New Folsom (CSP-Sac) in a football game. Plaintiff was diagnosed as having a broken wrist and given an unspecified injection and a wrist protector [*3] by non-defendant RN Olsen. On Feb. 28, 2005, non-defendant x-ray technician R. Demarco x-rayed the wrist and confirmed that plaintiff's wrist was broken, after which plaintiff was transported to Doctors' Hospital in Manteca where RN Rose, not a defendant, applied a temporary half-splint, telling plaintiff he should return within three to five days to be seen by an orthopedic specialist. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff was provided exit care instructions at Doctors' Hospital on Feb. 28, 2005, and CSP-Sac medical staff received instructions from the hospital on March 1, 2005, stating: "Ice elevate call for ortho clinic this week to make an appointment." Plaintiff was seen by defendant Penner on March 1, 2005, and on March 7, 2005. Plaintiff explained to defendant Penner and an unmamed medical technical assistant (MTA), three days after the removable splint had been placed on him, that the fiber glass half-splint was beginning to bend back against his wrist and that he was afraid this would cause his wrist bone to mend at an awkward angle. Plaintiff also explained that the half-splint's flexibility was a problem when he was asleep or made an unconscious movement. Plaintiff suffered extreme pain and [*4] sleep deprivation nightly when he repositioned himself in bed. Id. at 4-5.
On plaintiff's visit on March 7, 2005, with defendant Penner, Dr. Penner called Doctors' Hospital and noted that a clerk named Jessica would call RN Rose at the CSP-Sac consult desk to arrange for plaintiff to be seen at the ortho clinic in two days. Defendant R. Marquard began the process for the appointment that was to occur on March 9, 2005, but did not complete the process. Id. at 5.
On plaintiff's March 30, 2005, follow-up visit with non-defendant Williams, it was found that plaintiff had a "mal-union of the right distal radius with displacement," and referred plaintiff to U.C. Davis (UCD). On May 5, 2005, at UCD, non-defendant Dr. Allen recommended corrective surgery, originally scheduled for July 22, 2005, but which was later re-scheduled by UCD. The surgery eventually occurred on August 29, 2005. Another follow-up appointment was scheduled within the next month. Id.
Plaintiff seeks money damages, including punitive damages, for the defendants' alleged failure to provide adequate medical treatment and/or for the delay in treatment, resulting in the unnecessary, wanton infliction of pain. Plaintiff claims [*5] the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Id. at 6-7.
Motion to Compel
Plaintiff seeks documents in response to his thirteen requests for production directed to defendants. Defendants have posited only objections to each request, providing no production whatever. Motion to Compel (MTC), 1-5 & Exhibit (Exh.) A. Defendants, as noted, filed no response to the motion.
Any party has the right to discovery of "any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party?." ; thus, the scope of discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) is broad. Discovery may be sought of relevant information not admissible at trial "if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. The court, however, may limit discovery if it "?.is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative," or can be obtained from another source "that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; or if the party who seeks discovery "has had ample opportunity by discovery ?to obtain the information sought"; or if the proposed discovery is overly burdensome. Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(i), (ii) and (iii).
As to request no. 1, wherein plaintiff [*6] seeks copies of all California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Title 15 Sections "regarding medical health services that are determined by the physician to be reasonable and necessary to protect life, prevent significant illness or disability, or alleviate severe pain," to which request defendants posited objections as overbroad and on the basis that Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations is available to plaintiff in the prison law library (MTC, Exh. A., p. 9), the court agrees that plaintiff should have access other than through defendants to those regulations and will deny the motion as to that request.
In request no. 2, plaintiff seeks documents other than those sought in the previous request which reference or contain "the current and previous guidelines relevant" to CDCR "medical health services." Id. Although the objection is somewhat grammatically garbled, the court agrees with defendants' assertion that the request is overbroad and will not require production in response to such a wide-ranging request.
In request no. 3, plaintiff seeks:
Copies of any and all internal documents, notes, records, recordings medical x-rays [sic] sheets, including any and [*7] all true names and identities of those medical employees who seen [sic], examine [sic] and or made appointments but not limited to follow-ups relevant to plaintiff[']s complaint.
Response: Objection. The documents referred to are in plaintiff's medical file, which plaintiff has access to at his institution.
MTC at 10.
The court finds this response to be inadequate. The undersigned is aware of no rule or authority which provides for plaintiff's access to his medical records equivalent to that of the defendants, nor do defendants cite any. The motion as to this request will be granted. In granting this request, the court also grants request nos. 10, 11 and 13, to the extent that, in response to each, defendants refer plaintiff to his medical records which they assert are equally available to him. Defendants, within thirty days, will be required either to provide the medical records plaintiff seeks or confirm to the court that plaintiff has been granted access to his medical records.
In request no. 4, plaintiff requests copies of any and all civil complaints filed against the defendants, seeking all relevant "case numbers, case citations, settlements, court rulings and or jury verdicts against [*8] defendants?not limited to the medical services complaints of CSP-Sacramento prisoners?."
Defendants posit the following response: "Objection. This request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence." MTC at 10. While settlements would certainly not be relevant and the term "court rulings" is too amorphous to credit, the relevance of any jury verdict in any case of medical malpractice brought against either defendant is at least arguable in the context of plaintiff's claims, and defendants have failed to file a comprehensive objection or any opposition to the motion. Therefore, if any complaints concerning medical care provided by defendants have been brought to a jury verdict, defendants must produce those documents to plaintiff within thirty days.
In request no. 5, plaintiff seeks:
Copies of any and all documented doctor orders, recommendations, records, files[,] notes, but not limited to recordings relevant to and or [sic] would be useful to plaintiff[']s complaint against the defendants.
Response: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendants cannot determine what plaintiff believes is useful to plaintiff's complaint [*9] and therefore cannot respond to this request.
MTC at 10.
Defendants could also have asserted that the request is speculative. The motion as to this request will be denied.
In request no. 6, plaintiff seeks:
Copies of any and all guidelines giving the time frame to reset broken wrist bone, but not limited to hands, fingers, arms, including the side effects, conditions received once time limit has expired calling for corrective surgery to be done.
Response: Objection. This request is overbroad. All guidelines which address the treatment of broken wrist bones, hands, fingers, arms, etc., are to [sic] voluminous to produce and require the production of medical text books, periodicals and other such documents. Defendants will therefore not respond to this request.
MTC at 11.
In addition, to its overbreadth, the request, essentially and inappropriately, asks defendants to conduct research on his behalf. The motion to compel as to this request will be denied.
Request No. 7
Copies of any and all internal documents, notes, records, recordings but not limited to the protocol(s) showing violations in giving or delaying medical treatment to plaintiff[']s broken wrist bone.
Response:
Objection. This request [*10] is argumentative. Defendants deny there has been any violation in giving or delaying medical treatment to plaintiff's broken wrist bone, if there was such a broken wrist. Defendants will therefore not respond to this request.
MTC at 11.
Although the request borders on the unintelligible, to the extent that defendants appeared to have deciphered it, the objection is not sufficient. Defendants may inform plaintiff that there are no such documents in their custody, possession or control, and that they believe no such documents exist, but may not simply refuse to respond on the basis that the request might be argumentative. The undersigned observes that it is likely that access to his own medical records may satisfy this request. In any event, the motion for a further response as to this request will be granted.
As to request no. 8, wherein plaintiff references "the basis of federal receiver taking over CSP-Sacramento medical services of all prisoners," is, as defendants assert, irrelevant, as well as ambiguous to the point of unintelligibility. Also unintelligible is plaintiff's awkwardly framed request no. 9. MTC at 11. The motion will be denied as to these requests.
As to request no. 12, [*11] wherein plaintiff seeks copies of ducat sheets showing that on Feb. 26, 2005, he was playing in an approved football tournament before his wrist was broken, defendants indicate that they have no access to any such ducat sheets (MTC at 13), and the court will not direct a further response.
Motion for Continuance
Plaintiff seeks an extension of time, or a continuance, for the filing of his opposition to defendant Marquard's motion for summary judgment (and by extension, defendant Penner's later filed dispositive motion). The court construes plaintiff's motion as filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), on grounds that defendants have not provided adequate responses/production to his requests for production of documents.
Rule 56(f) provides that if a party opposing a summary judgment motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify the opposition the court may deny the motion or order a continuance. As the court has granted plaintiff's motion to compel in part, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has made an adequate showing to warrant a continuance.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's unopposed motion to compel further [*12] response/production as to his first set of production of documents, filed on October 16, 2007 (# 19), is granted as to request nos. 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, to the extent set forth above, and denied as to request nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12.
2. Plaintiff's February 11, 2008 (# 24), unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to defendant Marquard's summary judgment motion, construed as a motion for a continuance pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), is granted.
3. Defendants are, within thirty (30) days, to file proof of having provided the medical records plaintiff seeks or confirm to the court that plaintiff has otherwise been granted access to his medical records.
4. Defendant Marquard's motion for summary judgment, filed on January 3, 2008 (# 21), and defendant Penner's motion for summary judgment, filed on April 10, 2008 (# 26), are hereby vacated without prejudice to being re-noticed once defendants have filed proof of having served the further responses/production as directed herein.
DATED: 06/12/08
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR CARRASQUILLO, Plaintiff, vs. MONTE PENNER, et al., Defendants.
No. CIV S-06-0851 JAM GGH P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 14, 2009, Decided
January 15, 2009, Filed
COUNSEL: [*1] Victor Carrasquillo, Plaintiff, Pro se, Represa, CA.
For Monte Penner, Defendant: Dayton Van Vranken Longyear, LEAD ATTORNEY, Longyear O'Dea and Lavra, LLP, Sacramento, CA; Jennifer Marquez, LEAD ATTORNEY, Longyear O'Dea and Lavra, Sacramento, CA.
For R. Marquard, Defendant: Andreas Oliver Garza, California Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA.
JUDGES: John A. Mendez , UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY: John A. Mendez
OPINION
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.
On November 13, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 1
FOOTNOTES
1 Plaintiff's post hoc objections do not provide even a belated substantive opposition to the dispositive motions; instead, plaintiff simply asserts that a lack of legal assistance from library clerks has precluded [*2] his ability to respond. Plaintiff at a minimum does not demonstrate how any such assistance was required for plaintiff to attempt to dispute any of the "undisputed material facts" as set forth by the defendants, and to raise a genuine issue of material fact.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed November 13, 2008, are adopted in full; and
2. Defendant Marquard's motion for summary judgment, filed July 21, 2008 (Docket # 31), and defendant Penner's motion for summary judgment, filed July 22, 2008 (Docket # 32), are granted, and this case is hereby closed.
DATED: January 14, 2009
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE