(PC) Womack v. Tate ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, Case No.: 1:19-cv-00614-NODJ-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO 13 v. COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 14 H. TATE, et al., (Doc. 78) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Rodney Jerome Womack is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On July 14, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued an Order 21 Granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories. (Doc. 74.) Plaintiff 22 was ordered to provide supplemental responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 23 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 21) and a statement affirming that his previous interrogatory 24 responses, as well as his supplemental responses, were all made under oath, no later than August 25 18, 2023. (Id. at 10.) 26 On September 8, 2023, Judge McAuliffe granted Plaintiff an extension of time, to October 27 17, 2023, to serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 21. (Doc. 77.) // 1 On September 11, 2023, Defendant filed a second motion to compel further responses to 2 interrogatories. (Doc. 78.) Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s supplemental interrogatory responses do 3 not include responses to two interrogatories he was ordered to address and also contends “various 4 supplemental responses remain deficient.” (Id. at 3.) 5 On November 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s motion to compel. (Doc. 6 81.) That same date, Plaintiff sought a further extension of time regarding Interrogatory No. 21. 7 (Doc. 82.) 8 On December 5, 2023, Judge McAuliffe issued an Order of Recusal. (Doc. 86.) As a 9 result, this action was assigned to the undersigned as magistrate judge. (Id.) 10 On December 14, 2023, the Court issued its order granting Plaintiff’s request for a 45-day 11 extension of time within which to provide a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 21. (Doc. 12 87.) 13 On December 15, 2023, Defendant filed a reply in support of the second motion to 14 compel. (Doc. 88.) 15 On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Motion of Notice to 16 Provie Supplemental Response to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 21.” (Doc. 89.) 17 On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Motion That Provide 18 Supplemental Response to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 21.” (Doc. 90.) 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 A. Defendant’s Motion to Compel 21 Defendant contends Plaintiff’s responses to the Court’s August 18, 2023 order fail to 22 address two interrogatories included in the order and that several of the supplemental responses 23 provided remain deficient. (Doc. 78 at 4-5.) Because Defendant intends to file a motion for 24 summary judgment addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 25 to serious medical needs claim, Plaintiff’s responses “would be beneficial, if not necessary, for 26 such a motion.” (Id. at 6.) Specifically, Defendant contends Plaintiff failed to provide 27 supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 19. (Id. at 6-8.) Defendant further contends 1 12.) Finally, Defendant requests the Court impose sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 2 the Court’s order compelling supplemental responses. (Id. at 13.) 3 B. Plaintiff’s Response 4 Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion, filed November 22, 2023, includes responses 5 to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 19, as well as to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 10, 18 and 20. (Doc. 81 at 2- 6 3.) It also includes reference to Interrogatory No. 21 and his need for an extension of time. (Id. at 7 3.) 8 C. Defendant’s Reply 9 Defendant replies that in light of Plaintiff’s response, he “will not further pursue his 10 motion to compel with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 18.” (Doc. 88 at 2.) However, 11 Defendant contends Plaintiff’s responses remain deficient. (Id.) Defendant seeks further 12 supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 10, 19 and 20. (Id. at 2-6.) 13 D. The Applicable Legal Standards 14 “District courts have ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of 15 litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. Cty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 16 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 17 2011)). “The purpose of discovery is to make trial less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a 18 fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest extent possible, and to narrow 19 and clarify the issues in dispute.” Jadwin v. Cnty. Of Kern., No. 1:07-cv-0026-OWW-TAG, 2008 20 WL 2025093, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2008) (quotation and citations omitted). As such, litigants are 21 entitled to seek from each other discovery of information that is “relevant to the claim or defense 22 of any party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). 23 “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than 24 it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” 25 Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevancy is broadly defined to encompass any matter that bears on, or that 26 reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case. 27 Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Although relevance is broadly 1 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc., 437 U.S. at 351). For instance, 2 discovery may be limited if it “is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from 3 some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;” if the party who 4 seeks discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action;” 5 or if the proposed discovery is irrelevant or overly burdensome. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i)-(iii). 6 Generally, if a party responding to a discovery request fails to comply with the request, 7 the propounding party may seek relief from court through a motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 37(a)(3)(B). Among other things, the court may order a party to provide further responses to an 9 “evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The moving 10 party bears the burden of informing the Court: (1) which discovery requests are the subject of the 11 motion to compel; (2) which of the responses are disputed; (3) why the response is deficient; (4) 12 why any objections are not justified; and (5) why the information sought through discovery is 13 relevant to the prosecution or defense of this action. Harris v. Quillen, No. 1:17-cv-01370-DAD- 14 SAB (PC), 2020 WL 4251069, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2020) (citing cases). 15 An interrogatory is a written question propounded by one party to another who must 16 answer under oath and in writing. Interrogatories are limited to anything within the permissible 17 scope of discovery, namely, any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 18 defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 26(b)(1). The responding party is obligated to respond to the 19 interrogatories to the fullest extent possible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be 20 stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). “Generally, the responding party does not need to 21 conduct extensive research in answering the interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must 22 be made.” Ramirez v. Kitt, No. 1:17-cv-00947-BAM (PC), 2024 WL 247243, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 23 Jan. 23, 2024). “The responding party is required, to the extent there are no objections, to answer 24 interrogatories separately and fully in writing under oath.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)). 25 E. Analysis 26 Following Defendant’s reply of December 15, 2023, Interrogatory Nos. 4, 10, 19 and 20 27 remain in dispute. Each is addressed below. 1 Interrogatory No. 4 2 Defendant contends the supplemental further response is “not meaningfully different from 3 the previous version, and thus is deficient:” Interrogatory No. 4 and the responses are quoted 4 here: 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Describe with particularity how DEFENDANT’S medical 6 treatment, care, evaluation, or assessment of YOU differed from 7 that of any of YOUR prior medical care providers during YOUR incarceration for the same injuries, disabilities, limitations, 8 conditions, or diseases. 9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Defendant Tate did not provide me any type of medical treatment 10 for any of my injuries or mobility disabilities. 11 FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 12 Defendant’s medical treatment differed from that on [sic] any of my prior medical care provider [sic] during my incarceration is as 13 follows – Defendant discontinued my mobility vest, physical therapy, and pain medication Trileptal. 14 NEW RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 15 Defendant discontinued my cane, mobility vest, physical therapy, pain medication Trileptal. These above discontinuances are the 16 beginnings of Defendant[] H. Tate[’s] denial of ongoing treatments 17 for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 81 at 2.) 18 (Doc. 88 at 2-3.) Defendant asserts that although Plaintiff’s latest responses “add some detail by 19 stating specific forms of treatment that Defendant allegedly did not provide, they do not explain 20 how Defendant’s treatment for any particular medical concern differed from that of any particular 21 prior care provider.” (Id. at 3.) 22 While the Court concludes that Plaintiff has undertaken in good faith to comply with the 23 Court’s previous order, Plaintiff’s supplemental responses require further supplementation. 24 Accordingly, the Court will direct Plaintiff to further respond to Interrogatory No. 4 and provides 25 the following clarification for Plaintiff: describe how Defendant Tate’s treatment, care, 26 evaluation, or assessment of your injuries, disabilities, limitations, conditions or diseases was 27 different from your prior medical providers—for example, how was Defendant Tate’s 1 discontinuation of your mobility vest different from any prior medical provider’s orders regarding 2 a mobility vest? If a previous medical provider ordered a mobility vest, why did Defendant Tate 3 discontinue a mobility vest? —in other words, Plaintiff must explain or describe the differences 4 for each particular medical concern you have identified and any reason for those differences. 5 Interrogatory No. 10 6 Defendant contends Plaintiff’s new response fails to answer the question presented; 7 specifically, that Plaintiff failed to “’describe with particularly which treatments, assessments, or 8 other accommodations were required for his pain,’ or any other condition that allegedly should 9 have been addressed” because it does not explain why the listed treatments were needed. (Doc. 88 10 at 4.) The relevant interrogatory and responses are: 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 10: If YOU contend that DEFENDANT should have, but did not, perform or 12 provide any medical assessment, evaluation and/or treatment for YOU, 13 describe with particularity YOUR basis for contending that each such medical assessment, evaluation, accommodation, and/or treatment was for 14 any reason required, recommended, advisable, or preferable. 15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Treatment was required due to Plaintiff’s continuous pain and suffering 16 24 hours every single day. 17 FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 18 Defendant should have, but did not, provide medical treatment for Plaintiff’s lower back pain, numbness in left fingers, left foot, bed sores, and left shoulder. 19 The above medical conditions caused me excruciating pain 24 hours every day. 20 NEW RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Previous doctors prescribed Plaintiff with cane, mobility vest, physical therapy, 21 pain medication Trileptal. Defendant H. Tate discontinued all of the above 22 treatments and did not replace these treatments with alternative treatments. (ECF No. 81 at 2.) 23 24 (Doc. 88 at 3-4.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s supplemental responses, taken together, do not 25 require further supplementation. Plaintiff indicated in the most recent response that Defendant’s 26 discontinuation of his cane, mobility vest, physical therapy and medication Trileptal were done 27 without alternative treatments offered where Plaintiff’s earlier response asserts he was continuously suffering from lower back pain, numbness in his left fingers, left shoulder and left 1 foot, and bed sores, inferring such treatment was at least advisable or preferable, if not required 2 and recommended. 3 Interrogatory No. 19 4 Next, Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s latest response “alleges only generally that unspecified 5 later providers provided various treatments, but it does not explain what condition or injury each 6 treatment corresponded to. The response is also ambiguous as to whether all later providers 7 provided the same treatments.” (Doc. 88 at 5.) The relevant interrogatory and responses are: 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Describe with particularity how DEFENDANT’S medical 9 treatment, care, evaluation, or assessment of YOU differed from 10 that of any of the medical care providers that treated YOU after DEFENDANT for the same injuries, disabilities, limitations, 11 conditions, or diseases while incarcerated. 12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Defendant medical treatment [sic] differed from previous medical 13 care providers because Defendant Tate refused to provide Plaintiff 14 any type of treatment for his injuries. [¶] (No supplemental response initially was provided to this interrogatory.) 15 NEW RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 16 Defendant’s medical treatment differed in the following from other doctors. When I was transferred from Tehachapi State Prison 17 “other prisons” gave me the following treatments[:] ten different 18 types of pain medications, physical therapies, mobility vest, cane, orthopedic shoes. Doctors scheduled me to see orthopedics, 19 neurologists, doctors ordered lower tier and lower bunk chronos. Doctors scheduled Plaintiff for surgeries on his lower back, left 20 shoulder, and left elbow. Defendant Tate did none of the above 21 treatments. (ECF No. 81 at 2.) 22 (Doc. 88 at 4-5.) 23 The Court finds Plaintiff’s supplemental responses require further supplementation. Given 24 what the Court determines is Plaintiff’s good faith effort to comply with the Court’s previous 25 order, the Court will direct Plaintiff to further respond to Interrogatory No. 19 and provides the 26 following clarification for Plaintiff: State which treatments, assessments or other accommodations 27 provided by later medical providers were required for your pain and identify which later provider 1 Interrogatory No. 20 2 Lastly, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s latest responses suffer from the same defect his 3 original response suffered from: Plaintiff describes only occurred while Defendant Tate provided 4 care, “but it does not address any later impact” following Tate’s care. (Doc. 88 at 6-7.) The 5 relevant interrogatory and responses are: 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 20: If YOU contend that YOUR medical condition would be different 7 or could have been different if the medical care provided to YOU 8 by DEFENDANT had been different, state all facts supporting that contention. 9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 10 Defendant did not provide me any type of medical treatment so this question is irrelevant. 11 12 FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: At this point I am scheduled to have surgery on my lower back and 13 surgery on my left shoulder, and elbow. This is the difference: Defendant refused to provide me anytype [sic] of treatment where all 14 doctors before and after Defendant injuries [sic] did in fact provide treatments for me. 15 16 NEW RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Defendant H. Tate caused Plaintiff extreme harm by intentionally 17 allowing Plaintiff to suffer excruciating pain 24 hours every day. Plaintiff had to suffer excruciating pain when he had to walk using his 18 left foot and lower back, use his left shoulder, hand, and elbow. 19 Plaintiff had to suffer this excruciating pain 24 hours every[] day without any treatments from Defendant H. Tate. Had Defendant H. 20 Tate provided Plaintiff any[] type of treatments for Plaintiff’s above physical medical problems[,] Plaintiff possibly would not have been 21 suffering excruciating pain 24 hours every[] day while under the sole care of the Defendant. (ECF No. 81 at 3.) 22 23 (Doc. 88 at 5.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s supplemental responses require further 24 supplementation. Given what the Court determines is Plaintiff’s good faith effort to comply with 25 the Court’s previous order, the Court will direct Plaintiff to further respond to Interrogatory No. 26 20 and provides the following clarification for Plaintiff: describe how and when your medical 27 conditions were different from the period when medical care was provided by Defendant Tate— 1 | different and when did they change? Explain those difference for each condition—lower back, 2 | left foot, left shoulder, et cetera. 3 F. Sanctions 4 In his motion to compel, Defendant requests the imposition of unspecified sanctions for 5 | Plaintiff's failure to comply with Judge McAuliffe’s earlier order. (Doc. 78 at 13.) Defendant’s 6 | reply to Plaintiff's response does not address the issue of sanctions. (See Doc. 88.) Given the 7 | Court’s denial in part of Defendant’s motion to compel, the Court declines Defendant’s request to 8 || impose sanctions. See Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Rule 9 | 37 sanctions are appropriate only where the discovery violation is due to willfulness, bad faith, or 10 | fault of the party”); Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 649 (9th Cir. 1997) 11 | (sanctions reserved for “rare and exceptional” cases). 12 However, the Court cautions Plaintiff that any failure to further and fully supplement his 13 | earlier interrogatory responses in violation of this Order may be grounds for sanctions, including 14 | evidentiary sanctions (see Lanier v. San Joaquin Valley Officials Ass’n, No. 1:14-cv-01938-EPG, 15 | 2016 WL 4764669, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016)), and dismissal of his action (see Jones v. 16 | Frazesn, No. 2:09-cv-02758 RCT, 2009 WL 3254905, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2009)). 17 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 18 Based on the above, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses (Doc. 78) is 19 | GRANTED in PART. Within 45 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL 20 | provide further supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 19 and 20. 21 Further, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant SHALL file a status report within 22 | 15 days of the receipt of Plaintiff's further supplemental responses indicating whether the 23 | deadline for the filing of dispositive motions can be reset by the Court. 24 | IT IS SOORDERED. Dated: _ February 27, 2024 | Wr bo 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28