Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01690/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01690-5/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

JOSHUA NEIL HARRELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1690 TLN CKD P

ORDER

This pro se prisoner action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeds against defendant

O’Weary. In the operative complaint filed October 14, 2014, plaintiff alleges that O’Weary 

retaliated against him for filing grievances, violating the First Amendment. (ECF No. 1; see ECF 

Nos. 4 & 17.) Discovery in this action closed on December 4, 2015. (ECF No. 26.) Before the 

court are eight discovery motions filed by plaintiff. 

I. Legal Standard

Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery 

regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(b). “Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.

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.

Case 2:14-cv-01690-TLN-CKD Document 70 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 7
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

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).

II. Analysis

A. ECF No. 37

Plaintiff constructively filed this motion on October 2, 2015. (ECF No. 37.) He seeks 

“discovery assistance” with the depositions of eight non-party witnesses.

Earlier, plaintiff served defendant with six sets of written deposition questions directed to 

non-party witnesses. (ECF No. 37 at 5-26; ECF No. 41 at 2.) Defendant objected to plaintiff’s 

attempt to depose these persons by written questions. (ECF No. 37 at 28-50; ECF No. 41 at 2.) 

Plaintiff now seeks to compel the written depositions of these witnesses, along with an award of 

$3,150 to cover his litigation expenses. 

Defendant argues that the motion should be denied because plaintiff has not followed the 

procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31, has shown no ability to pay for such 

depositions, and is not entitled to an award of fees. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff has filed a reply. 

(ECF No. 46.) 

Under Rule 31(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party may, by written 

questions, depose any person, including a party, without leave of court except as provided in Rule 

31(a)(2). The deponent’s attendance may be compelled by subpoena under Rule 45.” As one 

court explained:

A deposition upon written questions is covered by Rule 31 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The deposition upon written 

questions basically would work as follows. The prisoner would 

send out a notice of deposition that identifies (a) the deponent (i.e., 

the witness), (b) the officer taking the deposition, (c) a list of the 

exact questions to be asked of the witness, and (d) the date and time 

for the deposition to occur. The defendant would have time to send 

to the prisoner written cross-examination questions for the witness, 

the prisoner would then have time to send to defendant written redirect questions for the witness, and the defendant would have time 

to send to the prisoner written re-cross-examination questions for 

the witness[.]

Case 2:14-cv-01690-TLN-CKD Document 70 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 7
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

Brady v. Fishback, 2008 WL 1925242, at **1-2 (E.D. Cal. April 30, 2008), citing Lopez v. Horel, 

2007 WL 2177460, at *2, n. 2 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2007). “Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status ... 

does not entitle him to waiver of witness fees, mileage or deposition officer fees.” Jackson v. 

Woodford, 2007 WL 2580566, at *1. (S.D. Cal. August 17, 2007).

Here as in Jackson, plaintiff has not designated a deposition officer or notified the 

deponents of the time, place and manner of deposition. 2007 WL 2580566, at *1. Nor has 

plaintiff shown he can pay any of the costs associated with written depositions, including fees for 

a deposition officer and court reporter, the cost of transcribing the deposition, and witness fees 

and mileage under Rule 45(b)(1). As one court has observed: “If plaintiff wants to depose [a 

witness] on written questions, plaintiff needs to set up such a deposition, arrange for a court 

reporter and arrange for the attendance of the witness. It is not defendant’s obligation or the 

court’s obligation to do so.” Lopez, 2007 WL 2177460, at *2. The court further noted that a 

Rule 31 deposition “may sound like an inexpensive way for a prisoner to do discovery but usually 

is not.” Id., n.2. As plaintiff’s indigent status does not entitle him to a waiver of fees and he has 

not met the Rule 31 requirements, the court will deny this motion. 

B. ECF No. 39

Plaintiff constructively filed this motion on October 5, 2015, seeking production of 

documents that were the subject of his September 2, 2015 discovery request. (ECF No. 39.) 

Defendant opposes the motion as premature, pointing out that, per the Discovery and 

Scheduling Order, discovery responses were due 45 days after the requests were served. (See

ECF No. 26 at 4.) Defendant served a response to plaintiff’s document requests on October 19, 

2015. (ECF No. 40 at 2.) 

Plaintiff filed a reply citing Rule 34(b)(2)(A), providing that a party must respond to 

document requests within 30 days after being served. (ECF No. 48.) However, the rule 

continues: “A shorter or longer time may be . . . ordered by the court.”

////

////

////

Case 2:14-cv-01690-TLN-CKD Document 70 Filed 12/11/15 Page 3 of 7
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

4

Because plaintiff filed this motion before the response to his document request was due, 

the court will deny the motion as premature.1 

C. ECF No. 42

Plaintiff constructively filed this motion on October 15, 2015, seeking responses to 

interrogatories he served on September 14, 2015. (ECF No. 42.) Defendant filed an opposition 

(ECF No. 45), and plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 49).

As noted above, per the scheduling order, responses to written discovery requests were 

due 45 days after the requests were served. Respondent served a response to the interrogatories 

on October 27, 2015. (ECF No. 45 at 2.) Thus this motion also will be denied as premature.

D. ECF No. 51

In this motion, plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant to “fully answer” his first set 

of interrogatories. (ECF No. 51.) The interrogatories and defendant’s responses are attached. 

(Id.) Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 59.)

Plaintiff has not carried his burden to show why defendant’s responses are inadequate or 

his objections unjustified. See Williams v. Cate, 2011 WL 6217378 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 

2011) (“Plaintiff bears the burden of informing the Court . . . for each disputed response, why 

Defendant’s objection is not justified. . . . Plaintiff may not simply assert that he has served 

discovery responses, that he is dissatisfied, and that he wants an order compelling further 

responses.”), citing Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL 860523 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). Because 

plaintiff does not show why defendant’s responses to specific requests are deficient, the court will 

deny the motion.

E. ECF No. 52

In this motion, plaintiff again asserts that defendant did not timely respond to his first set 

of interrogatories. (ECF No. 52; see ECF No. 42.) This motion will be denied for the reasons set 

forth above.

 

1

In this and other motions, plaintiff seeks an order directing defendant to reimburse him for the 

cost of litigating the motion, including “attorney’s fees.” Plaintiff is entitled to no such 

reimbursement, nor to attorney’s fees, as he is proceeding pro se. 

Case 2:14-cv-01690-TLN-CKD Document 70 Filed 12/11/15 Page 4 of 7
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

5

F. ECF No. 53

In this motion, plaintiff seeks a 60-day extension of time to conduct additional discovery, 

as he “has not had adequate time to produce [and] compel from the defendants.” (ECF No. 53.) 

Defendant filed an opposition (ECF No. 55), and plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 65).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified 

only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The good cause 

standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court may modify 

the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.” Id. 

The record reflects that plaintiff timely served document requests and interrogatories on 

defendant and received responses. (ECF No. 55 at 2.) Plaintiff does not explain why he could 

not serve additional discovery requests despite his diligence, nor does he specify what additional 

discovery he hopes to obtain. Rather, he offers generalities such as “limited access to the law 

library,” “lack of adequate time,” and the need to conduct “significant research.” (ECF No. 65.) 

As plaintiff fails to show good cause to modify the scheduling order, the court will deny this 

motion. 

G. ECF No. 54

In this motion, plaintiff seeks to compel responses to his requests for admissions, served 

on defendant on October 23, 2015. (ECF No. 54.)

In his opposition, defendant argues that he properly objected to the requests as untimely 

because they were served less than 60 days prior to the close of discovery on December 4, 2015

as required by the scheduling order. (ECF No. 57; see ECF No. 26 at 5.)

Despite his pro se status, plaintiff is not entitled to any latitude for the untimeliness. See

Fingerhut Corp. v. Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856–57 (8th Cir. 1996) (stating that 

pro se representation does not excuse a litigant from complying with court orders); Jourdan v. 

Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (explaining that courts should liberally construe pro se 

plaintiffs’ legal arguments and strictly construe their compliance with procedural requirements); 

Case 2:14-cv-01690-TLN-CKD Document 70 Filed 12/11/15 Page 5 of 7
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

6

see also Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008–09 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting 

that pro se plaintiffs must follow the rules of the court). 

Here, plaintiff served requests for admissions on defendant less than 60 days prior to the 

discovery deadline. He has not shown good cause for the delay such as would warrant 

modification of the scheduling order, as set forth above. Because defendant’s objection for 

untimeliness was proper, this motion will be denied.

H. ECF No. 67

In this “supplemental motion” to ECF No. 37, plaintiff seeks to compel written 

depositions from two non-party witnesses. (ECF No. 67.) For the reasons set forth above, this 

motion will be denied.

Moreover, plaintiff’s filing of frivolous motions is a burden on this court and impedes the 

proper prosecution of this action. Plaintiff’s future filings shall therefore be limited as set forth 

below.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s first motion to compel (ECF No. 37) is denied; 

2. Plaintiff second motion to compel (ECF No. 39) is denied; 

3. Plaintiff’s third motion to compel (ECF No. 42) is denied; 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for court order (ECF No. 51) is denied; 

5. Plaintiff’s motion for supplemental order (ECF No. 52) is denied;

6. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to conduct additional discovery (ECF No. 53) 

is denied;

7. Plaintiff’s fourth motion to compel (ECF No. 54) is denied; 

8. Plaintiff’s supplemental motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 67) is denied; and

9. Plaintiff may only file the following documents:

a. One dispositive motion, limited to one memorandum of points and authorities 

in support of the motion and one reply to any opposition;

b. One opposition to any motion filed by defendants (and clearly titled as such); 

c. Only one non-dispositive motion pending at any time. Plaintiff is limited to one 

Case 2:14-cv-01690-TLN-CKD Document 70 Filed 12/11/15 Page 6 of 7
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

7

memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion and one reply to any 

opposition; and

d. One set of objections to any future findings and recommendations.

Failure to comply with this order shall result in improperly filed documents being stricken 

from the record and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: December 11, 2015

2 / harr1690.mtc

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-01690-TLN-CKD Document 70 Filed 12/11/15 Page 7 of 7