Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06120/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06120-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD D. ASHFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. JEFFREY NEUBARTH, M.D., 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-6120-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL

(Docs. 44 and 45) 

Plaintiff Edward D. Ashford (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this tort action filed on August 17, 2004. On April 21, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to

compel. Defendant Neubarth (“defendant”) filed an opposition to the motion on May 9, 2006.

 Plaintiff seeks to compel a further response to his interrogatories and request for the

production of documents. As defendant correctly points out, although plaintiff included a copy of

his interrogatories and request for the production of documents, plaintiff failed to include a copy of

defendant’s responses to the discovery requests. Further, also as noted by defendant, plaintiff did

not set forth any argument as to why defendant’s responses and/or objections were improper.

In order for the court to adjudicate a motion to compel, the moving party must provide a copy

of the discovery requests at issue and a copy of the response to the requests, if any. Further, the

moving party bears the burden of explaining why the discovery sought is necessary and why the

opposing party’s objection or response is inadequate and/or incorrect. Because plaintiff’s motion

lacks this necessary information, it must be denied.

///

Case 1:04-cv-06120-LJO -LJO Document 49 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In his opposition, defendant notified the court that its order of September 12, 2005, contained

a discrepancy concerning the deadline for the completion of discovery and requested clarification.

The deadline set forth in the caption of the order is the correct deadline. All discovery, including the

filing of motions to compel, shall be completed on or before July 7, 2006.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed April 21, 2006, is HEREBY

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06120-LJO -LJO Document 49 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2