Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00830/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00830-12/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

GRADY HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0830 TLN DB P

ORDER

On September 19, 2019, the court issued an order granting the motion to compel of 

defendants D. Calderon, E. Cervantes, M. Fong, T. Fuller, J. Munoz, K. Rose, M. Thompson and 

S. Williamson. (ECF No. 66). On September 23, 2019, defendants filed a request for

clarification of the court’s order. (ECF No. 68). The clarification request asks whether the 

court’s grant of its motion to compel includes requiring plaintiff to produce responses to

defendants’ requests for production (“RFPs”). (See id.).

The court’s grant of defendants’ motion to compel issued September 19, 2019 (ECF No. 

66) includes defendants’ interrogatory requests as well as defendants’ requests for production. 

Therefore, with respect to responding to defendants’ RFPs, as with defendants’ interrogatory 

requests, plaintiff is to respond to each RFP as specifically and directly as possible. If plaintiff is 

unable to produce the items requested, he must state as much and indicate with specificity why he 

is unable to do so. General, non-specific and/or blanket responses are discouraged.

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 69 Filed 09/25/19 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court’s September 19, 2019, order (ECF No. 66) granting defendants’ September 

28, 2018, motion to compel includes defendants’ requests for production as well as defendants’ 

interrogatory requests;

2. Within forty-five days of September 19, 2019, plaintiff shall provide complete 

responses to defendants’ outstanding requests for production. Absent exigent circumstances, a 

request for an extension of time to comply with this order will not be granted;

3. Upon receipt of this order, defense counsel Annakarina De La Torre-Fennell shall 

send plaintiff new copies of defendants’ requests for production that are currently at issue in order 

to eliminate any confusion regarding which of them remain to be properly answered by plaintiff, 

and

4. The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines stated in the court’s September 19, 

2019 order (ECF No. 66) remain in effect.

Dated: September 24, 2019

DLB:13

DB/ORDERS.ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS/harr0830.mtc.misc

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 69 Filed 09/25/19 Page 2 of 2