Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06316/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06316-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHON MORGAN, CASE NO. CV-F-02-6316 AWI DLB P

Plaintiff, FURTHER ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

vs.

[Doc. 63]

DURAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants answered the second amended complaint upon which this

action proceeds on January 3, 2005 and the Court issued an order opening discovery on January 26,

2005. On April 12, 2005, the Court issued an Order regarding plaintiff’s motion to compel production

of documents which was filed on March 14, 2005. The Court found that the investigative reports

relating to the August 8, 2002 incident were relevant to plaintiff’s claims. Because defendants made a

privilege claim, the Court ordered defendants to submit the documents to the Court for in camera review.

On May 11, 2005, defendants filed a response to the Court’s order indicating that they had made a

mistake and in fact there were no investigative reports for the August 8, 2002 incident. Plaintiff filed

a reply requesting that defendants be sanctioned for withholding documents.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. The Court must accept defendants’ representaiton that

documents responsivve to the discovery requests do not exist. Defendants and their counsel are aware

Case 1:02-cv-06316-AWI-DLB Document 76 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 2
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

of their disclosure obligations in this case and the consequences of failing to comply. There is nothing

to suggest that defendants have not been forthcoming in their response to the Court. Plaintiff’s motion

to compel further production of documents is therefore DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06316-AWI-DLB Document 76 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 2