Summary
denying motion to file supplemental complaint adding a retaliation claim which involved "multiple elements not pertinent to the claims [of deliberate indifference to medical needs] raised in plaintiff's original pleading, and none of the defendants who [had] answered were involved in the alleged retaliation"
Summary of this case from Bradford v. OgbuehiOpinion
No. 2:15-cv-0533 KJN P
09-07-2016
RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, Plaintiff, v. J. WINDSOR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. The instant action proceeds on claims that defendants Dr. Windsor, Dr. Lankford, Dr. Lee and T. Mahoney were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, in connection with plaintiff's pain management in lieu of receiving further ankle surgery, once he was transferred to High Desert State Prison ("HDSP") on March 18, 2014. Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to his request for production of documents is before the court. As discussed below, plaintiff's motion is denied.
II. Standards
Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an "evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). "District courts have 'broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.'" Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)).
The reach of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs requests for production, "extends to all relevant documents, tangible things and entry upon designated land or other property." Clark v. Vega Wholesale Inc., 181 F.R.D. 470, 472-73 (1998), citing 8A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2206, at 381. Plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are disputed, (3) why he believes the response is deficient, (4) why defendants' objections are not justified, and (5) why the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. McCoy v. Ramirez, 2016 WL 3196738 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2008) ("Plaintiff must inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the court why the information sought is relevant and why defendant's objections are not justified."). Also, Rule 34 requires that the party upon whom a request is served "be in possession, custody, or control of the requested item." Clark, 181 F.R.D. at 473, citing Estate of Young v. Holmes, 134 F.R.D. 291, 293 (D. Nev.1991). Under Rule 34, "[c]ontrol is defined as the legal right to obtain documents upon demand. [Citation.] The party seeking production of the documents . . . bears the burden of proving that the opposing party has such control." U.S. Int'l Union of Petroleum and Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989); see also In re Citric Acid Lit., 191 F.3d 1090, 1108 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing the same issue in a Rule 45 context).
III. Discussion
Defendants first object that plaintiff failed to meet and confer prior to filing the motion, as required by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff did not file a reply to the opposition. Plaintiff is informed that even if he disagreed with defendants' responses, he was still required to attempt to resolve his discovery disputes prior to filing the motion to compel. In any event, for the reasons discussed herein, plaintiff's motion to compel is not well-taken.
The undersigned agrees with defendants that plaintiff has not met his burden here. First, plaintiff did not provide a copy of the discovery requests with defendants' responses, and in requests no. 1 and no. 2, plaintiff changed the wording of the discovery request submitted to the court. Discovery closed on July 29, 2016, and plaintiff was required to propound all discovery requests 60 days prior to July 29, 2016. Thus, to the extent plaintiff attempted to seek additional discovery, his requests are untimely. Second, as to those documents that were produced by defendants, plaintiff failed to identify what responses were inadequate and to explain why. Third, as to those documents sought that are equally available to plaintiff, plaintiff does not dispute that such records are available to him. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he sought such documents but was denied. Fourth, plaintiff fails to show how medical records pre-dating his first ankle surgery in 2009, or following his second ankle surgery in September of 2015, are relevant to the claims at issue here. Finally, plaintiff failed to demonstrate how his request number 8, seeking "any and all correctional custody staff records, committee actions, [and] disciplinary write-ups pertaining to plaintiff while he was incarcerated at [HDSP] from 2013 through 2016" are relevant to the instant claims.
For all of the above reasons, plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 39) is denied. Dated: September 7, 2016
/s/_________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE /woma0533.mtc