Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01641/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01641-10/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVAUGHN ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTTINI,

Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-1641 KJM CSK P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is before the 

court. (ECF No. 45.) As set forth below, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

The Parties’ Positions

In plaintiff’s motion to compel, plaintiff declares that on January 18, 2024, plaintiff signed 

a “single production of document request,” but has not yet received a response. (ECF No. 45 at 

1.) Plaintiff states that the request sought “any and all videos on B-7 when [defendant] worked 

and April through May. . . .” (Id.) Further, plaintiff claims that a meet and confer would be too 

late to meet the discovery deadline. (Id.) 

In opposition, defendant objects that no such discovery request was received and plaintiff 

did not provide a copy of the purported discovery request or a copy of the proof of service 

corroborating plaintiff served the request. (ECF No. 47.) Defendant confirms that on or about 

January 30, 2024, four requests for production of documents seeking various documents were 

Case 2:22-cv-01641-DC-CSK Document 48 Filed 05/10/24 Page 1 of 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

2

received, but none of the requests sought production of video footage. (Id.) Despite plaintiff’s 

failure to seek video footage in the discovery requests received by defendant, counsel for 

defendant obtained video footage from May 19, 2022, one of the days defendant worked in B7, 

and was making arrangements for plaintiff to view the footage at Salinas Valley State Prison 

where plaintiff is currently housed. (Id.) No other video footage for any of the dates defendant 

worked in B7 has been located, and “none is believed to exist.” (ECF No. 47 at 3.) Defendant 

also provided a copy of defendant’s responses to plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of 

documents. (ECF No. 47 at 5-8.)

Plaintiff did not file a reply.

Motions to Compel Discovery

A. Standards Governing Discovery Disputes

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may 

move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(3)(B). 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). “District courts have 

‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County. 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 party moving to compel bears the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery 

requests are the subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are disputed, (3) why 

he believes the response is deficient, (4) why defendants’ objections are not justified, and (5) why 

the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. McCoy 

v. Ramirez, 2016 WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL 860523, 

at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). If a court grants the motion, then the court must order the party 

“whose conduct necessitated the motion . . . to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in 

making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). The court must not 

award expenses if “the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the 

disclosure or discovery without court action”; “the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or 

Case 2:22-cv-01641-DC-CSK Document 48 Filed 05/10/24 Page 2 of 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

3

objection was substantially justified”; or “other circumstances make an award of expenses 

unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii).

B. Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion to compel was signed under penalty of perjury on March 14, 2024, one 

day before the discovery deadline expired, and therefore the motion is timely. However, as 

argued by defendant, plaintiff failed to provide a copy of the discovery request or the proof of 

service attesting to service of the purported request for production of video footage on defendant. 

In addition, plaintiff failed to reply to defendant’s opposition, and defendant’s responses to the 

plaintiff’s first request for production of documents confirms that plaintiff did not seek video 

footage in such request. Because it appears plaintiff failed to properly serve a request to produce 

video footage, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. The Court appreciates the defendant 

planning for plaintiff to view the May 19, 2022 video footage despite plaintiff’s failures.

As set forth above, the Court would normally be required to order plaintiff to pay 

defendant’s reasonable expenses in opposing plaintiff’s motion. However, because plaintiff is 

indigent, and proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court finds such an order would be unjust.1

 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 45) 

is denied.

Dated: May 10, 2024

/1/robi1641.mtc

1

 That said, plaintiff is cautioned to take care when filing motions, and when signing court filings 

under penalty of perjury. Courts have dismissed an action with prejudice for failure to comply 

with a court order, for failure to prosecute, and for failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., 

Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for 

failure to comply with court order); see also Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 

1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with local rules); see also ECF 

No. 26 at 8 ¶ 17. 

Case 2:22-cv-01641-DC-CSK Document 48 Filed 05/10/24 Page 3 of 3