Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01526/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01526-3/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Vance Edward Johnson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action is proceeding against Defendants Sweeney and Hardon for retaliation in violation 

of the First Amendment. 

On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 28.) 

I.

DISCUSSION

The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous 

disregard of discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 

669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties may obtain 

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party=s claim or defense, and for 

good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the 

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SWEENEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01526-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO 

COMPEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF Nos. 28, 29]

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 39 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 3
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

action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). Relevant information need not be 

admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. Id. (quotation marks omitted).

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel 

bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV 

S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at 

*3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis 

v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 

This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the 

motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why 

the responding party=s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 

2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4. 

Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, Plaintiff is nonetheless required as the 

moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, 

which of Defendants’ responses are disputed, why he believes Defendants’ response are deficient, why 

Defendants’ objections are not justified, and why the information he seeks through discovery is 

relevant to the prosecution of this action. 

In this instance, Plaintiff has not attached copies of his discovery requests or Defendants’ 

responses thereto to his motion to compel. Nor has Plaintiff reproduced the discovery requests and 

Defendants’ responses thereto in his motion. Plaintiff is advised that the Court is unable to rule on his 

motion to compel as it currently presented because it is not clear what Plaintiff was asking for in his 

discovery requests or whether Plaintiff’s discovery requests were proper. It is also not clear how 

Defendants’ responded to each of Plaintiff’s discovery requests or why Defendants’ responses are 

inadequate. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions to compel, without prejudice. 

Because the discovery deadline expired on November 16, 2015-the same Plaintiff filed the instant 

motions (with application of the mailbox rule), the Court will extend the discovery deadline by thirty 

(30) days for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff to re-file his motions to compel, if so desired. 

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 39 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

No other discovery, outside of re-filing the motions to compel relating to discovery prior to the 

expiration deadline may be conducted. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions to compel are DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 39 Filed 12/11/15 Page 3 of 3