Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01567/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01567-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WILLIAM JACKSON KITCHENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD PIERCE, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01567-LJO-GSA-PC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO SERVE ADDITIONAL

INTERROGATORIES

(Doc. 32)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS

PREMATURE

(Docs. 43, 49)

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES

 New Discovery Cut-off Date . . . . . . . 06-30-2008

 New Dispositive Motion Deadline. . . 07-30-2008

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF

TO SERVE INTERROGATORIES

 William Jackson Kitchens (“plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff commenced this

action on December 5, 2005. Now pending is plaintiff's motion for leave to serve additional

interrogatories on defendants. 

On April 23, 2007, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order in this action

establishing a deadline of December 19, 2007 for completion of discovery; and a deadline of

February 19, 2008 for filing of dispositive motions. (Doc. 27.) On June 25, 2007, plaintiff filed a

motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories on defendants Transcor, Margaret Mimms,

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 59 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 4
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

and Gary Johnson. (Doc. 32.) On July 6, 2007, defendants Mimms and Johnson filed an

opposition to plaintiff's motion (Doc. 34), and on July 12, 2007, defendant Transcor joined in the

opposition. (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff has not filed a reply to the opposition.

Pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party propounding

discovery may seek an order compelling disclosure when an opposing party has failed to respond

or has provided evasive or incomplete responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(3). The moving party

bears the burden of demonstrating “actual and substantial prejudice” from the denial of

discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted.). 

Pursuant to Rule 33, an interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under

Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). Under Rule 26(b), “[U]nless otherwise limited by court

order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense — including the existence,

description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things

and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause,

the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.

Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Plaintiff bases his motion on a need for further responses to the interrogatories he

previously served on defendants. Plaintiff states that he served interrogatories on defendants

Transcor, Mimms and Johnson, on or about May 15, 2007. Plaintiff also states that he received

responses to those interrogatories from all of the defendants on June 15 and 16, 2007. Plaintiff

alleges that most of defendants' responses were in the form of objections to the interrogatories as

vague or ambiguous and, therefore, plaintiff wishes to clarify his interrogatories and re-serve

them on defendants, in an effort to acquire responses instead of objections. 

Defendants oppose plaintiff's motion on the grounds that plaintiff has failed to make a

"particularized showing" as to why additional interrogatories are necessary. Defendants argue

that plaintiff should not be given leave to "pose the same questions in a different form" if he has

not shown that defendants' objections were improper, that their answers were evasive or

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 59 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 4
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

incomplete, or that additional interrogatories would not be cumulative or duplicative. As

defendants argue, the motion before the court contains no evidence that defendants' responses

were deficient. Instead, plaintiff appears to have concluded that the interrogatories, not the

responses, were deficient, and for this reason requests leave to clarify them. The court

recognizes that clarification of the interrogatories may result in some duplication. However,

given that the court's discovery deadline expired while plaintiff's motion was under

consideration, leave shall be granted for plaintiff to clarify and re-serve the interrogatories he

previously served on defendants. 

Defendants also argue that plaintiff has failed to show any earlier attempt to address the

discovery issue with defendants. Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local

Rule 37-251 provide that a motion to compel shall contain certification that the moving party

has, in good faith, conferred or attempted to confer with the party not making the disclosure in an

effort to secure the disclosure without court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); see also

Local Rule 37-251. As defendants argue, the motion before the court contains no certification

that plaintiff has complied with the meet and confer requirement imposed by the rules. However,

the court’s discovery and scheduling order issued April 23, 2007, stated specifically that "Local

Rule 37-251 shall not apply, and the requirement set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26

and 37 that a party seeking relief from the court certify that he or she has in good faith conferred

or attempted to confer with the other party or person in an effort to resolve the dispute prior to

seeking court action shall not apply." (Sched.O. at 2:3-6.) Therefore, this argument fails.

The deadline for the completion of all discovery, including motions to compel, was

December 19, 2007. Plaintiff filed the instant motion on June 25, 2007. In light of the instant

order, the court will extend the discovery deadline to June 30, 2008, for the limited purpose of

resolving the interrogatories at issue in plaintiff’s June 25, 2007 motion to serve additional

interrogatories. (Doc. 32.) The extension of the deadline to June 30, 2008 will provide plaintiff

with a limited amount of time in which to file any necessary motions following defendants'

responses to the interrogatories. In addition, because discovery in this action shall remain

ongoing, defendants’ pending motions for summary judgment, filed on February 19, 2008, shall

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 59 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 4
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

be denied as premature, without prejudice, and the deadline for dispositive motions shall be

extended to July 30, 2008.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to serve additional interrogatories, filed June 25, 2007, is

GRANTED;

2. Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall clarify

and re-serve on defendants Transcor, Mimms, and Johnson the same

interrogatories plaintiff previously served on these defendants on or about May

15, 2007;

3. Within forty five (45) days of the date of service of the interrogatories, defendants

shall serve responses to the interrogatories on plaintiff;

4. The discovery deadline is EXTENDED to June 30, 2008 for the limited purpose

of resolving the discovery at issue in plaintiff’s June 25, 2007 motion to serve

additional interrogatories; 

5. The deadline for dispositive motions is EXTENDED to July 30, 2008; 

6. Defendant Trancor's motion for summary judgment filed on February 19, 2008, is

DENIED as premature without prejudice; and

7. Defendants Mimms' and Johnson's motion for summary judgment filed on

February 19, 2008, is DENIED as premature without prejudice. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 25, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 59 Filed 03/25/08 Page 4 of 4