(PC) Gomez v. Acharya ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD GOMEZ, No. 2:17-cv-2407 MCE CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ACHARYA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983, has filed a motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 49) and a pretrial statement (ECF No. 19 54). 20 I. Motion to Compel 21 The scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) is broad. 22 Discovery may be obtained as to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 23 defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within 24 this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. The court, 25 however, may limit discovery if it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained 26 from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;” or if the 27 party who seeks discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery;” 28 or if “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 26(b)(2)(C). The purpose of discovery is to “make a trial less a game of blind man’s bluff and 2 more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent,” 3 United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958) (citation omitted), and “to 4 narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties,” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 5 (1947). 6 Where a party fails to produce documents requested under Federal Rule of Civil 7 Procedure 34, the party seeking discovery may move for compelled production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 37(a). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request 9 satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the party opposing discovery 10 has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, 11 explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 07-cv-0200 JM PCL, 2009 WL 12 1390794 at *1, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42339 at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (citations omitted); 13 see also Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 438-39 (9th Cir. 14 1992) (upholding denial of motion to compel because moving party did not show the request fell 15 within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1)). The opposing party is “required to carry a heavy burden of 16 showing why discovery was denied.” Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 17 1975). 18 Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel in which he seeks to compel defendants to produce a 19 transcription of portions of his medical records and a video recording. (ECF No. 49.) Defendants 20 oppose the motion on the grounds that plaintiff is seeking the creation of a document not already 21 in existence and that the request for production of surveillance video is a new request. 22 Defendants’ objection to plaintiff’s request that they provide him with a transcription of 23 portions of his medical record because he is unable to read the handwritten record is well taken. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 requires a party to produce documents in their “possession, 25 custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). In other words, their obligation is to produce 26 documents already in existence, not to create new documents. Defendants produced medical 27 records that corresponded to the dates requested (ECF No. 52 at 4) but were under no obligation 28 to provide a transcription of those records. The motion will therefore be denied as to this request. MASS StF FINENESS INEZ VO POMOC Ore VU VI 1 With respect to plaintiff's request to compel copies of surveillance video from specific 2 | dates, the motion will be denied. Defendants have provided a copy of plaintiffs requests for 3 | production showing that a request for such video was not previously made. (ECF No. 52-1 at 4- 4 | 8.) Because plaintiff did not previously request the video, the motion to compel is improper as to 5 | this request and will be denied. 6 Il. Pretrial Statement 7 Plaintiff has filed a pretrial statement (ECF No. 54) and defendants have objected on the 8 | ground that it is premature and request that in the event the court construes the statement as a 9 | motion for summary judgment an order to that effect be issued and they be given an opportunity 10 | to respond (ECF No. 57). 11 Because the dispositive motion deadline has not yet passed, it has yet to be determined 12 | whether this case will proceed to trial and the pretrial statement is premature. If it is determined 13 | that this case will proceed to trial and a trial date is set, a deadline for filing pretrial statements 14 | will be set at that time. Furthermore, plaintiff's pretrial statement is not a motion for summary 15 | judgment and will not be construed as such. Accordingly, both the pretrial statement and 16 | defendants’ response will be disregarded. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 49) is denied. 19 2. Plaintiffs pretrial statement (ECF No. 54) and defendants’ response (ECF No. 57) are 20 | disregarded. 21 | Dated: June 8, 2020 bh rdf /f [ { gt 22 CAROLYN K. DELANEY : 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 | 13:gome2407.mtc.pretrial 25 26 27 28