(PC) Ochotorena v. Adams et al, No. 1:2005cv01524 - Document 62 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 47 Motion to Compel and 51 Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 07/06/2009. (Plaintiff Filing Deadline: 07/30/2009) (Martin, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Ochotorena v. Adams et al Doc. 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RICHARD A. OCHOTORENA, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01524-LJO-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL v. 12 D. ADAMS, et al., 13 (Docs. 47 & 51) Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Richard A. Ochotorena (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 16 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding 17 on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed November 30, 2005, against Defendants Adams, Kalkis, Reynoso, 18 Curtiss, Duncan, Fambrough, Lane, and Rodriquez (“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that on 19 September 8, 2003, while incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, 20 defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights when excessive force was used against him. 21 On November 10, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses from 22 Defendants Adams and Reynoso to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, requests for admission, and 23 requests for production of documents. ( Doc. 47.) Defendants filed an opposition to this motion 24 on November 26, 2008. (Doc. 49.) Plaintiff filed his reply on December 11, 2008. (Doc. 50.) 25 On December 30, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the production of documents 26 from Defendant Kalkis. (Doc. 51.) Defendants filed an opposition to this motion on January 9, 27 2009. (Doc. 52.) Plaintiff filed his reply on January 26, 2009. (Doc. 53.) The matter is deemed 28 submitted. Local Rule 78-230. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff states that his discovery requests served on Defendants Adams and Reynoso 2 mistakenly asked about events occurring on September 3, 2003. (Doc. 47, Pl.’s Mot. to Compel 3 10.) Plaintiff states that he actually meant September 8, 2003. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel 10.) 4 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and the date of the alleged excessive force incident, September 8, 5 2003, is not in dispute. 6 Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff the opportunity to re-serve 1) on Defendant 7 Adams the following discovery requests: Interrogatories Nos. Five, Eight, and Nine; Requests for 8 Production of Documents Nos. One, Two, Three, Four, and Six; and Requests for Admission 9 Nos. Four and Six; and 2) on Defendant Reynoso the following discovery requests: 10 Interrogatories Nos. Two and Three; and Requests for Admission Nos. Two, Three, and Four. 11 Plaintiff may only change the date initially listed in these discovery requests, except as set forth 12 below for Request for Admission No. Six to Defendant Adams. The Court will address 13 Plaintiff’s motions to compel with the understanding that Plaintiff may re-serve Defendants 14 Adams and Reynoso as set forth herein. 15 Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days after the date of service of this order within which to 16 re-serve the above-mentioned discovery requests. Defendants shall have thirty (30) days after 17 service of the above discovery requests within which to serve a response. Plaintiff shall then 18 have thirty (30) days after service of response within which to file any motions to compel. The 19 discovery deadlines will be extended for this purpose and no other. 20 I. Motion To Compel - Defendant Adams 21 A. 22 23 Interrogatories 1. Interrogatory No. Five Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. Five: “As warden of CSATF and State Prison at Corcoran on 24 and before September 3, 2003, were you in charge of hiring and retention of all personnel under 25 your charge to include correctional officers?” 26 Plaintiff states that “the response to interrogatory No. 5 is incomplete as defendant 27 Adams failed to state whether or not he was in charge of retaining all personnel under his charge 28 as well.” In their opposition, Defendants served the following amended response: 2 1 4 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and the terms “in charge” and “your charge” are vague. Without waiving these objections, Defendant Adams was only responsible for approving the hiring of correctional staff members below the rank of Captain, except for new hires from the academy. Defendant was not responsible for the retention of all the personnel at Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran (SATF). Defendant does not work at SATF. 5 The amended response sufficiently answers Plaintiff’s interrogatory. Further response by 2 3 6 Defendant Adams is unnecessary. 7 8 2. Interrogatory No. Eight Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. Eight: “Was J. M. Astorga employed as a C/O at CSATF 9 State Prison at Corcoran on September 3, 2003?” 10 Defendant Adams’s response: “Defendant does not recall.” 11 Plaintiff contends, “This response is evasive and non-responsive to information easily and 12 readily available to Defendant.” 13 Defendants in their opposition state that Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit because 14 Defendant Adams clearly answered the interrogatory. The Court finds Defendant Adams’s 15 response to be insufficient. Defendant Adams does not state why this information cannot be 16 ascertained. Lack of personal knowledge is an insufficient response to an interrogatory if the 17 information is available from the party’s attorney. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 18 (1947) (“Where relevant and non-privileged facts remain hidden in an attorney’s file and where 19 production of those facts is essential to the preparation of one’s case, discovery may properly be 20 had.”) 21 22 3. Interrogatory No. Nine Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. Nine: “On September 3, 2003, and prior to that date were 23 you aware of prior acts of excessive force and dishonesty on the part of C/O’s J. M. Astorga and 24 J. Fambrough?” 25 Defendant Adams’s Response: “Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground 26 that it is compound and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 27 Without waiving these objections, no.” 28 3 1 2 Plaintiff argues that “this response is evasive and non-responsive.” Defendants in their opposition state that Defendant Adams clearly answered the question. 3 The Court agrees with Defendants. Defendant Adams responded, “No,” to Plaintiff’s 4 interrogatory. 5 6 7 B. Requests for Production of Documents (POD) 1. Request For Production of Documents No. One Plaintiff’s Request For POD No. One: “the Video Surveillance Institutional Operational 8 Procedure Plan for Facility “C”, at CSATF and State Prison at Corcoran on September 3, 2003.” 9 10 Defendant Adams’s Response: 16 Defendants objects to this request on the ground that it is compound, overbroad, and Plaintiff’s need for this information is substantially outweighed by the risk to institutional security. Providing Plaintiff with this information would provide him, and possibly other inmates, with the ability to avoid or otherwise manipulate this security measure, which would threaten the lives and safety of correctional staff members and inmates. Moreover, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Adams failed to adequately train and supervise the correctional staff members that allegedly assaulted Plaintiff at the Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran (SATF) on September 3, 2003. Accordingly, the video surveillance policy at SATF is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendant does not have possession, custody, or control over any documents responsive to this request. 17 Defendant Adams states that without waiving any of his objections, he does not have 11 12 13 14 15 18 possession, custody, or control over any documents responsive to this request. The Court finds 19 this answer to be insufficient. Defendant Adams must explain why he does not have possession, 20 custody, or control over the documents requested. Control is defined as the legal right to obtain 21 the documents requested upon demand. United States v. Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. 22 Workers, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989). 23 24 2. Request for POD Nos. Two, Three and Four Plaintiff’s Request for POD No. Two: “the video surveillance tape from all active camera 25 angels of video footage of the facility “C”, program office and medical area on September 3, 26 2003, relative to CSATF log. No. 03-3924.” 27 // 28 4 1 Defendant Adams’s Response: “Defendant does not have possession, custody, or control 2 over any video tapes responsive to this request.” 3 Plaintiff’s Request for POD No. Three: “video surveillance tape footage of normal inmate 4 movement from all active angels [sic] of the facility “C”, program office and medical area of 5 CSATF and State Prison at Corcoran.” 6 Defendant Adams’s Response: 7 Defendant objects to this request on the ground that it is compound, vague as to time, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and Plaintiff’s need for this information is substantially outweighed by the risk to institutional security. Plaintiff is asking Defendant to provide him with the location of any potential video “blind spots” at SATF. Without waiving these objections, Defendant does not have possession, custody, or control over any video tape footage responsive to this request. 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff’s Requests for POD No. Four: “the local operational procedure of CSATF and 12 State Prison at Corcoran on September 3, 2003, on Crime Scene Preservation and Maintaining 13 the Chain of Evidence.” 14 Defendant Adams’s Response: 15 17 Defendant objects to this request on the ground that it is compound, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendant does not have possession, custody, or control over any documents responsive to this request. 18 As stated previously, the Court finds Defendant Adams’s response that he does not have 16 19 possession, custody or control over any responsive documents insufficient. Defendant Adams 20 has not sufficiently explained why he does not have possession, custody, or control over any of 21 the documents requested by Plaintiff. 22 23 3. Request for POD No. Six Plaintiff’s Request for POD No. Six: “all records/information from the personnel files for 24 the preceding (5) five years prior to September 3, 2003, of C/O J. M. Astorga and C/O J. 25 Fambrough, relative to excessive force or unnecessary force, false reporting, failure to report, and 26 all acts of dishonesty.” 27 /// 28 5 1 Defendant Adams’s Response: 2 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound, violate these individuals right to privacy, this information is confidential pursuant to section 832.7 of the California Code of Criminal Procedure, and the information is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendant does not have possession, custody, or control over any documents responsive to this request. 3 4 5 6 Defendant Adams’s objections that the information requested is confidential and violates 7 Astorga’s and Fambrough’s privacy rights are not adequate. Such objections do not apply in the 8 context of this proceeding. Furthermore, the Court finds Defendant Adams’s response that he 9 does not have possession, custody, or control to be insufficient. Defendant Adams must explain 10 why he does not have possession, custody, or control over these documents. 11 C. 12 Requests for Admission 1. Request For Admission No. Four 13 Plaintiff’s Request For Admission No. Four: 14 Admit as Warden of CSATF and State Prison at Corcoran on September 3, 2003, that you were charged directly or indirectly with review of all use of force incident reports to insure that they were adequately prepared and that staff’s actions prior to the use of force, during the use of force, and after the use of force were in compliance with CDC Policies and Procedures. 15 16 17 Defendant Adams’s Response: 18 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and assumes facts which are not true. Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: As the warden, Defendant Adams was responsible for ensuring that all use of force incident reports were reviewed. However, this duty was delegated to the Chief Deputy Warden. Therefore, Defendant Adams was not responsible for reviewing use of force incident reports on September 3, 2003. Except as admitted, deny. 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff contends that this is “evasive and incomplete.” The Court does not agree. Defendant 23 Adams responded that he is responsible for ensuring that all use of force incident reports are 24 reviewed, but was not responsible for reviewing use of force incident reports on September 3, 25 2003. He denies anything else that he did not admit. Defendant Adams has thus responded in a 26 complete and non-evasive manner. 27 // 28 6 1 2. Request For Admission No. Six 2 Plaintiff’s Request For Admission No. Six: 3 Admit that as Warden of CSATF and State Prison at Corcoran on and before September 3, 2003, that all outdoor areas of “C” Facility to include the program office and medical area were equipped with video surveilance cameras which institutional operational procedures mandated that video surveilance cameras were operable, and that the quality of the video surveilance tape was “good”, and that video surveilance tape of all incidents or unusual occurrances including all potential crimes and misdemeanors be held and/or processed into evidence. 4 5 6 7 8 Defendant Adams’s Response: 9 14 Defendant objects to this request on the ground that it is compound, calls for speculation, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and Plaintiff’s need for this information is substantially outweighed by the risk to institutional security. Plaintiff is asking whether the entire outdoor area of Facility C, which is a large portion of the prison, is monitored by video cameras. By implication, Plaintiff is also asking whether there are any unmonitored areas of the prison, and that answer could jeopardized [sic] the safety of both inmates and correctional staff. To the extent that Plaintiff is asking if all the video surveillance equipment at SATF was properly maintained and processed on September 3, 2003, Defendant does not have sufficient personal knowledge to either admit or deny. 15 Defendant Adams contends that Plaintiff’s request is compound. Defendant contends that 10 11 12 13 16 Plaintiff’s need for this information is substantially outweighed by the risk to institutional 17 security as Plaintiff by implication is asking whether there are any unmonitored areas. Defendant 18 also contends that the request for admission is unrelated to Plaintiff’s complaint because Plaintiff 19 alleged that Defendants used excessive force while inside buildings at SATF. 20 Plaintiff contends that his request is not compound. Plaintiff explains that the purpose of 21 his request is to ascertain whether the outdoor areas of C Facility were monitored according to 22 D.P.-315 Exercise Yard video monitoring procedure, which includes operable video cameras, 23 good video footage, and processing/holding of videotape of all incidents or unusual occurrences. 24 Plaintiff contends that his request for admission is related to his complaint because Plaintiff 25 alleges that excessive force was used during Plaintiff’s escort, which occurred outdoors. Plaintiff 26 does not address Defendant’s contention that an answer to Plaintiff’s request could jeopardize 27 institutional security. 28 The purpose of a request for admission is to eliminate issues that are not in dispute 7 1 between the parties. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pacific Transport Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 245 (9th Cir. 2 1981). Thus, requests for admissions are not principally discovery devices and should not be 3 used as a substitute for other discovery processes to uncover evidence. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. 4 Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D. Cal. 1998). Here, Plaintiff’s request for admission is in 5 effect an interrogatory in that its purpose is to find evidence as to the existence of certain video 6 surveillance. This is not an appropriate use of a request for admission. 7 The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to re-serve this request for admission styled 8 as an interrogatory. The interrogatory should be limited in scope to the alleged locations and 9 time pertaining to Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff will have twenty (20) days from the date of 10 service of this order to serve Defendant Adams with this interrogatory. Defendant Adams will 11 have thirty (30) days after being served with Plaintiff’s interrogatory within which to serve a 12 response. Plaintiff will then have thirty (30) days after service of Defendant Adams’s response 13 to file a motion to compel, if any. 14 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request No. Six is granted, 15 as narrowed and clarified above. 16 II. Motion To Compel - Defendant Reynoso 17 A. 18 19 Interrogatories 1. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Nos. Two And Three Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. Two: “Were you assigned to Facility “C,” of CSATF and 20 State Prison at Corcoran on September 3, 2003?” 21 Defendant Reynoso’s Response: “After conducting a review of records in her possession, 22 custody, and control, Defendant cannot recall.” 23 Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. Three: “Were you on Facility “C,”of CSATF and State 24 Prison at Corcoran in the program office area on September 3, 2003 at approximately 2:31 25 p.m.?” 26 Defendant Reynoso’s Response:“After conducting a review of all records in her 27 possession, custody, and control, Defendant cannot recall.” 28 Plaintiff contends Defendant Reynoso’s response is “evasive and non-responsive.” 8 1 Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit because Defendant’s response is 2 sufficient. 3 4 5 B. Requests For Admission 1. Request For Admission No. Two Plaintiff’s Request For Admission No. Two: “Admit that you were assigned to Facility 6 “C”, of CSATF and State Prison on September 3, 2003.” 7 Defendant Reynoso’s Response: “After conducting a review of all records in her 8 possession, custody, and control, Defendant does not have sufficient personal knowledge to 9 admit or deny.” 10 Plaintiff contends this response was “evasive and non-responsive.” The Court disagrees. 11 Defendant Reynoso states that she undertook a review of all records in her possession, custody, 12 and control, and thus conducted a reasonable inquiry of readily attainable information. Having 13 done so, and still lacking sufficient knowledge to admit or deny, Defendant Reynoso’s response 14 is sufficient and not “evasive or non-responsive.” 15 16 2. Request For Admission No. Three Plaintiff’s Request For Admission No. Three: “Admit that you were on Facility “C”, in 17 the program office area of CSATF and State Prison at approximately 2:31 PM on September 3, 18 2003.” 19 Defendant Reynoso’s Response: “After conducting a review of all records in her 20 possession, custody, and control, Defendant does not have sufficient personal knowledge to 21 admit or deny.” 22 Plaintiff contends this response is evasive and non-responsive. . 23 Assuming that Defendant and counsel have attempted to review institutional payroll, 24 personnel and other records, which, if they still exist are presumably available to Defendant or 25 counsel the responses to Interrogatory Nos. Two and Three and Requests for Admission No. Two 26 and Three may be adequate. However, in order to avoid needless motions to compel Defendant’s 27 answer should explain the inability to obtain such records which are kept in the normal course of 28 business. In absence of such an explanation the Court cannot determine whether Reynoso and 9 1 counsel conducted a sufficient inquiry in an attempt to fully respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatory. 2 Defendant must explain her inability to review such records before the Court can determine 3 whether it should compel a further response. Defendant Reynoso shall either serve and file with 4 the court further responses or file a supplemental opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel 5 within 20 days of this order. 6 7 3. Request For Admission No. Four Plaintiff’s Request For Admission No. Four: “Admit you observed staff use of force 8 against plaintiff in the Facility “C”, program office area of CSATF and State Prison on 9 September 3, 2003, and fail to submit an incident report documenting your observations and 10 actions.” 11 Defendant Reynoso’s Response: “Defendant objects to this request on the ground that it is 12 compound. Without waiving this objection, deny.” 13 Plaintiff argues that his request is not compound. However, that contention is irrelevant 14 because Defendant Reynoso provided a response to Plaintiff’s request for admission by denying. 15 III. Motion To Compel - Defendant Kalkis 16 A. 17 Plaintiff’s Request For POD No. One: “the videotaped interview of inmate Ochotorena Request for Production Of Documents (POD) No. One 18 D-67758, conducted by Sergeant K. Curtiss, on September 8, 2003, at approximately 1431, that 19 you placed into evidence locker 10, relative to log. no. SATF-03-03-09-0367.” 20 Defendant Kalkis’s Response: “Defendant cannot provide Plaintiff with a copy of the 21 videotape for security reasons. Furthermore, prisoners are not permitted to possess a video tape 22 in their cell. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will provide a copy of the video to 23 the prison litigation coordinator, who will arrange for Plaintiff to view the tape.” 24 Plaintiff contended in support of his motion that if this matter proceeded, he would need 25 the tape to prepare for trial and play for the jury. Defendant agreed to arrange for Plaintiff to 26 view the videotape again and bring a copy of the tape to trial. Plaintiff in his reply did not object 27 to this arrangement. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request For 28 POD No. One is disregarded as moot. 10 1 B. 2 Plaintiff’s Request For POD No. Two: “the (7) seven polaroid photographs you took of Request For POD No. Two 3 inmate Ochotorena D-76658, on September 8, 2003, at approximately 1431, that you placed into 4 evidence locker 10, relative to log no. SATF-03-03-09-0367.” 5 Defendant Kalkis attached the documents requested as Exhibit A in his response. 6 Plaintiff contends that the photographs were of inferior quality and requested color photographs. 7 Defendants later provided color photographs to Plaintiff, to which Plaintiff did not object. 8 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request For POD No. Two is 9 disregarded as moot. 10 C. 11 Plaintiff’s Request For POD No. Three: “the (3) three polaroid photographs you took of Request For POD No. Three 12 the program holding cell area on September 8, 2003, at approximately 1431, that you placed into 13 evidence locker 10, log no. SATF-03-03-09-0367.” 14 Defendant Kalkis attached the documents requested as Exhibit A in his response. As in 15 Request For POD No. Two, Plaintiff contends that the photographs were of inferior quality and 16 requested color photographs. Defendants later provided color photographs to Plaintiff, to which 17 Plaintiff did not object. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request 18 For POD No. Three is disregarded as moot. 19 D. 20 Plaintiff’s Request For POD No. Four: “CSATF and state prisons local operational Request For POD No. Four 21 procedure on photographing a crime scene in effect on September 8, 2003.” 22 Defendant Kalkis’s Response: “Defendant objects to this request on the ground that it 23 calls for information that would jeopardize institutional security. Without waiving this objection, 24 after conducting a reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not have possession, custody, or control 25 over any documents responsive to this request.” 26 Defendant Kalkis states that without waiving any objection, and after conducting a 27 reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not have possession, custody, or control over any documents 28 responsive to Plaintiff’s request The Court cannot order Defendant to produce documents that 11 1 Defendant does not have possession, custody, or control over. Absent a showing by Plaintiff that 2 Defendant does in fact have such documents, Plaintiff is required to accept Defendant’s answer. 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request For POD No. Four is 4 denied. 5 E. 6 Plaintiff’s Request For POD No. Five: “CSATF and state prisons local operational Request For POD No. Five 7 procedure on crime scene preservation in effect on September 8, 2003.” 8 Defendant Kalkis’s Response: 9 12 Defendant objects to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, the term “crime scene preservation is vague,” and it calls for information that would jeopardize institutional security. Without waiving these objections and assuming that Plaintiff is asking for the procedure that applies after an inmate suffers an injury, the document responsive to this request are attached as Exhibit B. After conducting a reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not have possession, custody, or control over any additional responsive documents. 13 Defendant Kalkis, without waiving any objections, provided Plaintiff with documents for 10 11 14 the procedure that applies after an inmate suffers an injury. Defendant also stated that after a 15 reasonable inquiry, he does not have possession, custody, or control over any additional 16 responsive documents. As stated previously, the Court cannot order Defendant to produce 17 documents that Defendant does not have possession, custody, or control over. Absent a showing 18 by Plaintiff that Defendant does in fact have such documents, Plaintiff is required to accept 19 Defendant’s answer. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request For 20 POD No. Five is denied. 21 IV. Conclusion And Order 22 Accordingly, as set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. 24 Regarding Defendant Adams: a. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Interrogatories Nos. Five, 25 Eight, and Nine; Requests for Production of Documents Nos. One, Two, 26 Three, Four, and Six; and Request for Admission No. Four is GRANTED, 27 as narrowed and clarified by this order. Plaintiff may re-serve the 28 discovery requests above, changing only the date in the discovery request. 12 1 Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days after the date of service of this order 2 within which to re-serve the above-mentioned discovery requests. 3 Defendant shall have thirty (30) days after service of the above discovery 4 requests within which to serve a response. Plaintiff shall then have thirty 5 (30) days after service of response within which to file any motions to 6 compel. 7 d. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request for Admission 8 No. Six is GRANTED, as narrowed and clarified by this order. Plaintiff 9 shall have twenty (20) days after the date of service of this order within 10 which to re-serve his request for admission styled as an interrogatory. 11 Defendants shall have thirty (30) days after service of the interrogatory 12 within which to serve a response. Plaintiff shall then have thirty (30) days 13 after service of response within which to file any motions to compel. 14 2. 15 Regarding Defendant Reynoso: a. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Interrogatories Nos. Two 16 and Three; and Requests for Admission Nos. Two, Three, and Four is 17 GRANTED, as narrowed and clarified by this order. Defendant shall have 18 twenty (20) days from this order within which to serve a response or to 19 provide a supplemental response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 20 3. 21 Regarding Defendant Kalkis: a. Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents Nos. One, Two, and 22 Three is DISREGARDED as moot and his Request for Production of 23 Documents Nos. Four and Five is DENIED. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: 3b142a July 6, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
