Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01611/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01611-12/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRA GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN CHAKOTOS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01611 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

[ECF No. 49]

Plaintiff Ira Green (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s 

Second Amended Complaint, filed on May 3, 2013, against Defendant Chakotos for a claim of 

deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendant filed an answer to the SAC 

on August 25, 2014, and the Court issued a scheduling order on August 26, 2014.

On October 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Defendants filed an 

opposition to the motion on October 10, 2014. Plaintiff did not file a reply. The motion to compel is

deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

LEGAL STANDARD

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant 

to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). 

Case 1:11-cv-01611-LJO-DLB Document 58 Filed 11/12/14 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

Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. (quotation marks omitted).

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel bears 

the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. See, e.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, 

2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012). This requires the moving party to inform the Court which 

discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the 

information sought is relevant and why the responding party’s objections are not meritorious. Id., at 

*1. 

However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding 

these procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigator. Therefore, to the extent 

possible, the Court endeavors to resolve the motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of 

Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 

625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

Here, Defendant states Plaintiff has not yet served discovery on Defendant. Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s motion is improper. Plaintiff is advised that he must first serve discovery requests on 

Defendant and provide Defendant with an opportunity to respond to his requests before he can move 

to compel responses.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 11, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01611-LJO-DLB Document 58 Filed 11/12/14 Page 2 of 2