(PC) Womack v. Tate

Opinion

RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, Case No.: 1:19-cv-00614-NODJ-CDB Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO v. COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES H. TATE, et al., (Doc. 78) Defendants.

Plaintiff Rodney Jerome Womack is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 14, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued an Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories. (Doc. 74.) Plaintiff was ordered to provide supplemental responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 21) and a statement affirming that his previous interrogatory responses, as well as his supplemental responses, were all made under oath, no later than August 18, 2023. (Id. at 10.) On September 8, 2023, Judge McAuliffe granted Plaintiff an extension of time, to October 17, 2023, to serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 21. (Doc. 77.) // On September 11, 2023, Defendant filed a second motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. (Doc. 78.) Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s supplemental interrogatory responses do not include responses to two interrogatories he was ordered to address and also contends “various supplemental responses remain deficient.” (Id. at 3.) On November 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s motion to compel. (Doc. 81.) That same date, Plaintiff sought a further extension of time regarding Interrogatory No. 21. (Doc. 82.) On December 5, 2023, Judge McAuliffe issued an Order of Recusal. (Doc. 86.) As a result, this action was assigned to the undersigned as magistrate judge. (Id.) On December 14, 2023, the Court issued its order granting Plaintiff’s request for a 45-day extension of time within which to provide a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 21. (Doc. 87.) On December 15, 2023, Defendant filed a reply in support of the second motion to compel. (Doc. 88.) On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Motion of Notice to Provie Supplemental Response to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 21.” (Doc. 89.) On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Motion That Provide Supplemental Response to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 21.” (Doc. 90.) A. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Defendant contends Plaintiff’s responses to the Court’s August 18, 2023 order fail to address two interrogatories included in the order and that several of the supplemental responses provided remain deficient. (Doc. 78 at 4-5.) Because Defendant intends to file a motion for summary judgment addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim, Plaintiff’s responses “would be beneficial, if not necessary, for such a motion.” (Id. at 6.) Specifically, Defendant contends Plaintiff failed to provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 19. (Id. at 6-8.) Defendant further contends 12.) Finally, Defendant requests the Court impose sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order compelling supplemental responses. (Id. at 13.) B. Plaintiff’s Response Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion, filed November 22, 2023, includes responses to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 19, as well as to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 10, 18 and 20. (Doc. 81 at 2- 3.) It also includes reference to Interrogatory No. 21 and his need for an extension of time. (Id. at 3.) C. Defendant’s Reply Defendant replies that in light of Plaintiff’s response, he “will not further pursue his motion to compel with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 18.” (Doc. 88 at 2.) However, Defendant contends Plaintiff’s responses remain deficient. (Id.) Defendant seeks further supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 10, 19 and 20. (Id. at 2-6.) D. The Applicable Legal Standards “District courts have ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. Cty. 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 purpose of discovery is to make trial less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest extent possible, and to narrow and clarify the issues in dispute.” Jadwin v. Cnty. Of Kern., No. 1:07-cv-0026-OWW-TAG, 2008 WL 2025093, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2008) (quotation and citations omitted). As such, litigants are entitled to seek from each other discovery of information that is “relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevancy is broadly defined to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Although relevance is broadly 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc., 437 U.S. at 351). For instance, discovery may be limited if it “is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;” if the party who seeks discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action;” or if the proposed discovery is irrelevant or overly burdensome. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i)-(iii). Generally, if a party responding to a discovery request fails to comply with the request, the propounding party may seek relief from court through a motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). Among other things, 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). The moving party bears the burden of informing the Court: (1) which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel; (2) which of the responses are disputed; (3) why the response is deficient; (4) why any objections are not justified; and (5) why the information sought through discovery is relevant to the prosecution or defense of this action. Harris v. Quillen, No. 1:17-cv-01370-DAD- SAB (PC), 2020 WL 4251069, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2020) (citing cases). An interrogatory is a written question propounded by one party to another who must answer under oath and in writing. Interrogatories are limited to anything within the permissible scope of discovery, namely, any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 26(b)(1). The responding party is obligated to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest extent possible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). “Generally, the responding party does not need to conduct extensive research in answering the interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made.” Ramirez v. Kitt, No. 1:17-cv-00947-BAM (PC), 2024 WL 247243, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2024). “The responding party is required, to the extent there are no objections, to answer interrogatories separately and fully in writing under oath.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)). E. Analysis Following Defendant’s reply of December 15, 2023, Interrogatory Nos. 4, 10, 19 and 20 remain in dispute. Each is addressed below. Interrogatory No. 4 Defendant contends the supplemental further response is “not meaningfully different from the previous version, and thus is deficient:” Interrogatory No. 4 and the responses are quoted here: INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Describe with particularity how DEFENDANT’S medical treatment, care, evaluation, or assessment of YOU differed from that of any of YOUR prior medical care providers during YOUR incarceration for the same injuries, disabilities, limitations, conditions, or diseases. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Defendant Tate did not provide me any type of medical treatment for any of my injuries or mobility disabilities. FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Defendant’s medical treatment differed from that on [sic] any of my prior medical care provider [sic] during my incarceration is as follows – Defendant discontinued my mobility vest, physical therapy, and pain medication Trileptal. NEW RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Defendant discontinued my cane, mobility vest, physical therapy, pain medication Trileptal. These above discontinuances are the beginnings of Defendant[] H. Tate[’s] denial of ongoing treatments for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 81 at 2.) (Doc. 88 at 2-3.) Defendant asserts that although Plaintiff’s latest responses “add some detail by stating specific forms of treatment that Defendant allegedly did not provide, they do not explain how Defendant’s treatment for any particular medical concern differed from that of any particular prior care provider.” (Id. at 3.) While the Court concludes that Plaintiff has undertaken in good faith to comply with the Court’s previous order, Plaintiff’s supplemental responses require further supplementation. Accordingly, the Court will direct Plaintiff to further respond to Interrogatory No. 4 and provides the following clarification for Plaintiff: describe how Defendant Tate’s treatment, care, evaluation, or assessment of your injuries, disabilities, limitations, conditions or diseases was different from your prior medical providers—for example, how was Defendant Tate’s discontinuation of your mobility vest different from any prior medical provider’s orders regarding a mobility vest? If a previous medical provider ordered a mobility vest, why did Defendant Tate discontinue a mobility vest? —in other words, Plaintiff must explain or describe the differences for each particular medical concern you have identified and any reason for those differences. Interrogatory No. 10 Defendant contends Plaintiff’s new response fails to answer the question presented; specifically, that Plaintiff failed to “’describe with particularly which treatments, assessments, or other accommodations were required for his pain,’ or any other condition that allegedly should have been addressed” because it does not explain why the listed treatments were needed. (Doc. 88 at 4.) The relevant interrogatory and responses are: INTERROGATORY NO. 10: If YOU contend that DEFENDANT should have, but did not, perform or provide any medical assessment, evaluation and/or treatment for YOU, describe with particularity YOUR basis for contending that each such medical assessment, evaluation, accommodation, and/or treatment was for any reason required, recommended, advisable, or preferable. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Treatment was required due to Plaintiff’s continuous pain and suffering 24 hours every single day. FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 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. The above medical conditions caused me excruciating pain 24 hours every day. NEW RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Previous doctors prescribed Plaintiff with cane, mobility vest, physical therapy, pain medication Trileptal. Defendant H. Tate discontinued all of the above treatments and did not replace these treatments with alternative treatments. (ECF No. 81 at 2.) (Doc. 88 at 3-4.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s supplemental responses, taken together, do not require further supplementation. Plaintiff indicated in the most recent response that Defendant’s discontinuation of his cane, mobility vest, physical therapy and medication Trileptal were done 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 foot, and bed sores, inferring such treatment was at least advisable or preferable, if not required and recommended. Interrogatory No. 19 Next, Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s latest response “alleges only generally that unspecified later providers provided various treatments, but it does not explain what condition or injury each treatment corresponded to. The response is also ambiguous as to whether all later providers provided the same treatments.” (Doc. 88 at 5.) The relevant interrogatory and responses are: INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Describe with particularity how DEFENDANT’S medical treatment, care, evaluation, or assessment of YOU differed from that of any of the medical care providers that treated YOU after DEFENDANT for the same injuries, disabilities, limitations, conditions, or diseases while incarcerated.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Defendant medical treatment [sic] differed from previous medical care providers because Defendant Tate refused to provide Plaintiff any type of treatment for his injuries. [¶] (No supplemental response initially was provided to this interrogatory.) NEW RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Defendant’s medical treatment differed in the following from other doctors. When I was transferred from Tehachapi State Prison “other prisons” gave me the following treatments[:] ten different types of pain medications, physical therapies, mobility vest, cane, orthopedic shoes. Doctors scheduled me to see orthopedics, neurologists, doctors ordered lower tier and lower bunk chronos. Doctors scheduled Plaintiff for surgeries on his lower back, left shoulder, and left elbow. Defendant Tate did none of the above treatments. (ECF No. 81 at 2.) (Doc. 88 at 4-5.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s supplemental responses require further supplementation. Given what the Court determines is Plaintiff’s good faith effort to comply with the Court’s previous order, the Court will direct Plaintiff to further respond to Interrogatory No. 19 and provides the following clarification for Plaintiff: State which treatments, assessments or other accommodations provided by later medical providers were required for your pain and identify which later provider Interrogatory No. 20 Lastly, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s latest responses suffer from the same defect his original response suffered from: Plaintiff describes only occurred while Defendant Tate provided care, “but it does not address any later impact” following Tate’s care. (Doc. 88 at 6-7.) The relevant interrogatory and responses are: INTERROGATORY NO. 20: If YOU contend that YOUR medical condition would be different or could have been different if the medical care provided to YOU by DEFENDANT had been different, state all facts supporting that contention. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Defendant did not provide me any type of medical treatment so this question is irrelevant.

FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: At this point I am scheduled to have surgery on my lower back and surgery on my left shoulder, and elbow. This is the difference: Defendant refused to provide me anytype [sic] of treatment where all doctors before and after Defendant injuries [sic] did in fact provide treatments for me.

NEW RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Defendant H. Tate caused Plaintiff extreme harm by intentionally allowing Plaintiff to suffer excruciating pain 24 hours every day. Plaintiff had to suffer excruciating pain when he had to walk using his left foot and lower back, use his left shoulder, hand, and elbow. Plaintiff had to suffer this excruciating pain 24 hours every[] day without any treatments from Defendant H. Tate. Had Defendant H. Tate provided Plaintiff any[] type of treatments for Plaintiff’s above physical medical problems[,] Plaintiff possibly would not have been suffering excruciating pain 24 hours every[] day while under the sole care of the Defendant. (ECF No. 81 at 3.) (Doc. 88 at 5.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s supplemental responses require further supplementation. Given what the Court determines is Plaintiff’s good faith effort to comply with the Court’s previous order, the Court will direct Plaintiff to further respond to Interrogatory No. 20 and provides the following clarification for Plaintiff: describe how and when your medical conditions were different from the period when medical care was provided by Defendant Tate— different and when did they change? Explain those difference for each condition—lower back, left foot, left shoulder, et cetera. F. Sanctions In his motion to compel, Defendant requests the imposition of unspecified sanctions for Plaintiff's failure to comply with Judge McAuliffe’s earlier order. (Doc. 78 at 13.) Defendant’s reply to Plaintiff's response does not address the issue of sanctions. (See Doc. 88.) Given the Court’s denial in part of Defendant’s motion to compel, the Court declines Defendant’s request to impose sanctions. See Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Rule 37 sanctions are appropriate only where the discovery violation is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party”); Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 649 (9th Cir. 1997) (sanctions reserved for “rare and exceptional” cases). However, the Court cautions Plaintiff that any failure to further and fully supplement his earlier interrogatory responses in violation of this Order may be grounds for sanctions, including evidentiary sanctions (see Lanier v. San Joaquin Valley Officials Ass’n, No. 1:14-cv-01938-EPG, 2016 WL 4764669, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016)), and dismissal of his action (see Jones v. Frazesn, No. 2:09-cv-02758 RCT, 2009 WL 3254905, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2009)). Based on the above, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses (Doc. 78) is GRANTED in PART. Within 45 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL provide further supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 19 and 20. Further, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant SHALL file a status report within 15 days of the receipt of Plaintiff's further supplemental responses indicating whether the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions can be reset by the Court. IT IS SOORDERED. Dated: _ February 27, 2024 | Wr bo UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE