Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00195/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00195-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LE ROI JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-07-00195 MMC (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL

On September 20, 2007, Defendant Officer Anthony Jackson filed a motion seeking an order

to compel Plaintiff to respond to written discovery and to compel Plaintiff’s initial disclosures. 

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, did not file an opposition to Defendant’s motion. Because this

matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument, the Court vacated the October 30, 2007

hearing and now grants Defendant’s motion to compel. 

On June 13, 2007, Defendant served interrogatories and requests for production of

documents on Plaintiff. Declaration of Owen Rooney Ex. A, B. Plaintiff has not responded to the

discovery requests, nor did he respond to Defendant’s three subsequent letters seeking responses. 

Rooney Decl. Ex. C, D, E. Because Plaintiff did not oppose this motion, he has provided no

explanation for his failure to respond to discovery. Thus, no later than November 30, 2007, Plaintiff

shall serve responses to Defendant’s interrogatories and requests for production of documents. 

Plaintiff has also failed to serve initial disclosures on Defendant, which were due on April

13, 2007 pursuant to Judge Chesney’s standing order. Because Plaintiff did not oppose this motion,

he has provided no explanation for his failure to make initial disclosures. Thus, no later than

November 30, 2007, Plaintiff shall serve his initial disclosures on Defendant. 

Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied because it was not made in a separate motion. 

Case 3:07-cv-00195-MMC Document 54 Filed 10/26/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

See Civil L.R. 7-8. 

The Court is aware that Plaintiff has been incarcerated since August 8, 2007, and therefore is

concerned that Plaintiff may not be receiving papers that are filed in this case. The Court will serve

this Order on Plaintiff’s address of record, but Defendant is ordered to mail a copy to any other

addresses that Defendant has on file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00195-MMC Document 54 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 2