(PC) McRae v. Dikran ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL SCOTT McRAE, 1:16-cv-01066-NONE-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING DISCOVERY DOCUMENT IMPROPERLY FILED WITH 13 vs. THE COURT (ECF No. 39.) 14 BAIRAMIAN DIKRAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 Michael Scott McRae (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 22 (1971). This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed on March 9, 23 2018, against defendants Dr. Dikran Bairamian,1 Dr. Kevin Cuong Nguyen, and Dr. David Betts, 24 for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment and state law claims for medical 25 malpractice and medical battery. (ECF No. 14.) This case is now in the discovery phase. 26 27 1 In his original Complaint, Plaintiff referred to this defendant as Dr. Bairamian, Dikran, M.D. 28 (ECF No. 1.) The court entered the defendant’s name as Bairamian Dikran. (Court docket.) In his Answer to the complaint, defense counsel clarifies that this defendant’s name is Dikran Bairamian. (ECF No. 32.) 1 On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff [sic] Motion 2 Requesting for [sic] Summaries of the Complete Medical Records.” (ECF No. 39.) In the 3 motion, Plaintiff requests production of Plaintiff’s complete medical records from defendant 4 Bairamian within thirty days. ((Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states that he received some of his medical 5 records from defendant Bairamian, but he does not have all of the medical records 6 In response, defendant Bairamian argues that Plaintiff’s motion is unclear and 7 unintelligible as to whom it is directed, as to the grounds for the motion, and as to what the subject 8 of the motion is. (ECF No. 41.) In reference to the medical records that Plaintiff asserts he 9 received, defendant Bairamian explains that he served records on all parties, including Plaintiff, 10 in response to a demand by co-defendant Dr. Betz. Defendant Bairamian also asserts that he has 11 not received any discovery requests from Plaintiff and therefore, Plaintiff’s motion cannot be 12 seen as a motion to compel discovery responses. 13 Plaintiff’s document is not fashioned as a motion to compel discovery directed to the 14 court. Instead, Plaintiff’s document constitutes a discovery request to one of the defendants for 15 production of documents pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 16 Plaintiff is advised that discovery documents should be sent to defense counsel, not to the 17 court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34, 36. Pursuant to Local Rules, discovery documents including 18 interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admission, responses, and 19 proofs of service, “shall not be filed unless and until there is a proceeding in which the document 20 or proof of service is at issue.” L.R. 250.2(c), 250.3(c), 250.4(c). Here, there is no indication 21 that any discovery document is at issue in this case.2 Therefore, Plaintiff's request for production 22 of his medical records from defendant Bairamian shall be stricken from the record as improperly 23 filed. The parties are expected to conduct discovery between the parties, without court 24 intervention, until such discovery is at issue. 25 26 2 In the event that any of the defendants fail to make disclosures or to cooperate in discovery, 27 Plaintiff is referred to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 which governs motions to compel. Plaintiff should also refer to the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order filed on December 2, 2019 for information about conducting 28 discovery. 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion requesting 2 summaries of medical records, filed on February 24, 2020, is STRICKEN from the record as 3 improperly filed.3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: April 23, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 When a document is stricken, it becomes a nullity and is not considered by the court for any purpose.