Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02586/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02586-15/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON L. SCOTT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2586 LKK GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Warden Runnels violated the First

Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by denying his request

to change his name.

Pending before the court are three motions to compel filed by plaintiff on May 9,

2007, and May 10, 2007. Also pending is plaintiff’s motion for sanctions filed June 18, 2007. 

For the following reasons, these motions are denied.

The motions to compel filed May 9, 2007, concern defendant’s response to two

requests for production of documents. Plaintiff requests that defendant be ordered to provide

him with a complete copy of his central file as well as copies of all rules, regulations and policy

directives of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and High

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 96 Filed 10/15/07 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

2

Desert State Prison (HDSP). Defendant objected to these requests on grounds that they were

overly broad and that, with respect to plaintiff’s central file, the information sought was equally

available to plaintiff. 

Defendant’s objections are meritorious. Not every document in plaintiff’s central

file and not every regulation of the CDCR and HDSP are relevant to this action. Defendant is

correct that plaintiff has access to his central file. Accordingly, the motion to compel as to these

requests is denied.

Defendant also argues that these motions should be denied because plaintiff failed

to meet and confer before filing them. The February 27, 2006, discovery order provides that

Local Rule 37-251 does not apply. Pursuant to this order, plaintiff was not required to meet and

confer before filing his motions.

The motion to compel filed May 19, 2007, seeks to compel defendant to answer a

second set of interrogatories. Defendant objected that he had already responded to 25

interrogatories. See Defendant’s Opposition, Exhibit A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) provides that any

party may serve upon any other part written interrogatories, not exceeding 25. 

Plaintiff argues that defendant answered his first set of interrogatories before the

court denied the cross-motions for summary judgment and issued the scheduling order on

February 15, 2007. While this is true, plaintiff was still required to seek court permission before

exceeding the 25 interrogatory limit. For these reasons, this motion to compel is denied.

On June 18, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions. Plaintiff argues that

defendant should be sanctioned based on his discovery responses. Because the motions to

compel are denied, the motion for sanctions is denied.

On June 29, 2007, defendant filed a summary judgment motion. Because the

motions to compel were outstanding, the court will grant plaintiff an extension of time to file his

opposition.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 96 Filed 10/15/07 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel filed May 9, 2007 (court file docs. nos. 77, 78),

and May 10, 2007 (court file doc. no. 79), are denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions filed June 18, 2007 (court file doc. no. 82) is

denied;

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an opposition

to defendant’s summary judgment motion filed June 28, 2007.

DATED: 10/12/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

sc2586.com

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 96 Filed 10/15/07 Page 3 of 3