Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05321/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05321-11/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE THOMAS MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOAIZA, M.D., et. al, 

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03-5321 OWW LJO P 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. 59.) 

 Joe Thomas Miller (“Plaintiff”) s a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

On September 20, 2005, this Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order setting forth

a discovery deadline of May 15, 2006. 

On March 20, 2006, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel production of documents and

responses to interrogatories. According to Defendant, Plaintiff failed to produce documents

entirely and also provided insufficient responses to requests for interrogatories or provided no

response at all. To date, Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion. 

Case 1:03-cv-05321-OWW -LJO Document 64 Filed 04/13/06 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

A. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a party fails to answer an

interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, the discovery party may move for an order compelling an

answer. Fed.R.Civ.P.37(a)(2)(B). 

In this case, Defendants have propounded Requests for Interrogatories, Set One on

Plaintiff. After providing Plaintiff with extensions of time to respond to the interrogatories,

Plaintiff responded only by referring Defendant to his Complaint. As noted by Defendant, Rule

33 requires that each interrogatory be answered “separately and fully, in writing and under oath,

unless it is objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(1). Mere reference to the Complaint is insufficient. 

It is not the responsibility of the Defendant to peruse the Complaint and its attachments and

determine what may or may not suffice to answer the interrogatories. Defendant notes further

that Plaintiff has failed to respond to interrogatory numbers 3 and 18 entirely. 

As noted above, Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion to Compel. As such, the Court,

after examining the responses to the interrogatories propounded on Plaintiff, finds Plaintiff’s

responses insufficient to comply with the Rules of discovery and shall be treated as a failure to

answer. See, Fed.R.Civ.P.37(a)(3). Thus, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED and Plaintiff

will be required to supplement his responses to the interrogatories fully and completely as

required by the rules and without reference to other documents. 

With regard to the Motion for Production of Documents. The federal rules similarly

provide for a Motion to Compel in the event a party fails to provide for the inspection of

documents as requested under Rule 34. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2)(B). 

In this case, Defendant has made only four requests for the production of documents and

Plaintiff has failed to produce or respond in anyway to the requests nor has he opposed the

Motion to Compel. As noted by Defendants, Plaintiff has had over 160 days to respond to the

requests for discovery and has not done so. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel the Requests for

Production of Document is also GRANTED. 

B. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to produce the documents for inspection and failure to

Case 1:03-cv-05321-OWW -LJO Document 64 Filed 04/13/06 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

provide full and complete responses to the interrogatories without justification. Accordingly, the

Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Compel full and complete responses to the Request for

Interrogatories is GRANTED; and 

2. The Motion to Compel the Production of Document is also GRANTED. 

3. Plaintiff SHALL supplement his responses to the interrogatories and produce for

inspection the requested documents within THIRTY (30) days of the date of

service of this Order. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order compelling compliance

with the discovery requests may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of

the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05321-OWW -LJO Document 64 Filed 04/13/06 Page 3 of 3