Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146-22/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL WARNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW L. CATE, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01146-LJO-MJS (PC)

 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

 (ECF No. 90)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 10.) The matter 

proceeds against Defendants Spradling, Davis (formerly McGaha), Walker, Fellows and 

Prokop on an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim.

Previously, Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to file a motion to compel 

discovery. (ECF No. 86.) In that order, Plaintiff was advised that his motion should 

indicate “(1) which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, (2) which 

of the defendant's responses are disputed, (3) why he believes the defendant's 

responses are deficient, (4) why the defendant's objections are not justified, and (5) why 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 96 Filed 01/28/16 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

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

Walker v. Karelas, 2009 WL 3075575, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2009); Brooks v. 

Alameida, 2009 WL 331358, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009). Plaintiff was further advised 

that failure to do so will be grounds for the denial of his motion.

On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel, in which he 

seeks further responses from Defendants to his propounded discovery. (ECF No. 90.) 

Review of this motion, however, reveals that Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s 

directive regarding the motion’s contents. Though Plaintiff submits copies of his requests 

for production of documents, his first set of interrogatories, and his first set of 

admissions, he does not include any of the Defendants’ responses to his discovery 

requests, let alone those that he deems deficient. See E.D. Local Rule 251(c) (“Each 

specific interrogatory, deposition question or other item objected to, or concerning which 

a protective order is sought, and the objection thereto, shall be reproduced in full.”) He 

also fails to argue why he believes Defendants’ responses are deficient and/or 

objections are unjustified. Plaintiff, of course, bears the burden of describing why the 

Defendants’ particular responses are inadequate. See, e.g., Williams v. Flint, 2007 WL 

2274520, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007) (“It is plaintiff's burden to describe why a 

particular response is inadequate. It is not enough to generally argue that all responses 

are incomplete.”). Without any identification of specific responses to specific requests 

that Plaintiff deems deficient, his motion must be denied. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s November 23, 2015, motion 

to compel (ECF No. 90) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 96 Filed 01/28/16 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

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 96 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 3