Haney v. Adams et al
Filing
74
ORDER DENYING 71 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, With Leave to Amend, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 11/10/2011. Plaintiff may file an amended Motion to Compel within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MONTE HANEY,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01104-AWI-GBC (PC)
ORDER DENYING WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
v.
(Doc. 71)
DARREL G. ADAMS, et al.,
13
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
Defendants.
/
14
15
I.
16
Plaintiff Monte Haney (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on July
18
5, 2007. Doc. 1. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed on July 16,
19
2008, for: 1) excessive force on December 14, 2006, in violation of the Eighth Amendment by
20
defendants J.G. Oaks and D. Silva; 2) deprivation of outdoor exercise from December 15, 2006 to
21
March 15, 2007, in violation of the Eighth Amendment by defendants R. Botello, M. Rickman, F.
22
Oliver, G. Torres, T. Cano; and 3) deprivation of outdoor exercise of African-American inmates in
23
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause by defendants R. Botello, M.
24
Rickman, F. Oliver, G. Torres, T. Cano. Docs. 22, 28, 32.
Procedural History
25
On September 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Doc. 71. On September 22,
26
2011, Defendants filed an opposition. Doc. 72. On September 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a reply. Doc.
27
73.
28
///
1
1
2
II.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
A.
Legal Standard
3
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
4
party’s claim or defense . . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
5
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R.
6
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The responding party is obligated to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest
7
extent possible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R.
8
Civ. P. 33(b)(4). The responding party shall use common sense and reason. E.g., Collins v. Wal-
9
Mart Stores, Inc., No. 06-2466-CM-DJW, 2008 WL 1924935, *8 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2008). A
10
responding party is not generally required to conduct extensive research in order to answer an
11
interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made. L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, No. S-06-
12
2042 LKK GGH, 2007 WL 2781132, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2007). Further, the responding party
13
has a duty to supplement any responses if the information sought is later obtained or the response
14
provided needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(A).
15
If Defendants object to one of Plaintiff’s discovery requests, it is Plaintiff’s burden in his
16
motion to compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. In general, Plaintiff must inform
17
the Court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed
18
response, inform the Court why the information sought is relevant under Rule 26(b)(1) and why
19
Defendants’ objections are not justified.
20
21
B. Motion to Compel
22
In this instance, Plaintiff motioned to compel the production of documents which he asserts
23
that he has served on Defendants. Doc. 71. In response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Defendants
24
argue that Plaintiff has failed to meet the procedural requirements to successfully bring a motion to
25
compel. Doc. 72. Plaintiff’s motion to compel simply describes what discovery Plaintiff asserts he
26
has requested from Defendants.
27
When bringing a motion to compel discovery responses, the moving party shall set forth each
28
discovery request and the response that is at issue. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 34-250.3(c); E.D. Cal.
2
1
Local Rule 36-250(c). Plaintiff's motion is procedurally defective because it does not provide
2
Plaintiff’s requests for discovery. Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective because
3
it fails to discuss why Defendants' responses were inadequate or why Plaintiff is entitled to the
4
requested production through showing that the information sought is relevant under Rule 26(b)(1).
5
Without Plaintiff’s arguments as to why Defendants' responses were incorrect, the Court would be
6
forced to create arguments on behalf of the Plaintiff for his motion to compel. Therefore Plaintiff's
7
motion to compel, filed September 12, 2011, is thus denied.
8
9
III.
Leave To File Amended Motion
10
The preference of this Court is not to adjudicate motions for procedural defects that can be
11
readily cured, as is the case here. Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend his motion to
12
compel filed September 12, 2011. Plaintiff may amend his motion by submitting Defendants’
13
responses to his second request for production of documents and discussing in detail why
14
Defendants’ objections are unfounded and why the information Plaintiff sought is relevant under
15
Rule 26(b)(1). If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended motion to compel, Plaintiff must due so within
16
THIRTY (30) days of service of this order. Defendants will then have TWENTY (20) days from the
17
date of service of the amended motion to file an opposition.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated:
0jh02o
November 10, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
