Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01883/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01883-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELONZA JESSE TYLER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1883 MCE EFB P

vs.

R.L. ANDREASEN, M.D., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. His August 22, 2006, complaint claims that defendants violated his rights under

the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide adequate care for his serious medical needs. 

He moves to compel defendants to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of

documents and for a determination of the sufficiency of answers and objections to requests for

admissions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). A party may move for an

order compelling discovery with respect to objections or other failure to respond to

interrogatories or requests to produce documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B), 33(b)(5), 34(b). 

Defendants’ opposition argues that: (1) plaintiff’s discovery requests were not timely

served in accordance with the discovery and scheduling order; (2) plaintiff has never attempted

to meet and confer with defense counsel regarding the substance of the responses at issue; and

Case 2:06-cv-01883-MCE -EFB Document 31 Filed 02/25/08 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

2

(3) the requests were propounded jointly to the entire group of defendants and purported to

require them to provide joint responses where defendants have different jobs and have been sued

for separate and discreet acts or omissions.

The discovery and scheduling order of May 24, 2007, set the discovery cut-off date for

August 10, 2007. Accordingly, all requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34,

or 36 were to be served not later than 60 days before that date, which was June 11, 2007. 

Plaintiff submitted to the court on August 9, 2007, a motion to extend time for discovery to

September 10, 2007, to provide defendants with an additional 30 days in which to comply with

his requests. Plaintiff’s requests were served by mail on July 3, 2007, several weeks beyond the

60-day limit. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request is granted nunc pro tunc and the

discovery deadline is continued to and including September 10, 2007.

Defendants argue that plaintiff did not appropriately attempt to meet and confer with

defense counsel prior to filing his motion to compel. Rule 37(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure requires a party moving to compel further discovery responses to meet and

confer with the opposing party to try and resolve discovery disputes without judicial

intervention. Defendants state that as of August 7, 2007, when plaintiff requested to meet and

confer with defense counsel, plaintiff had yet to receive the responses in question and therefore

did not have a basis upon which to make his request. However, defendants waited until the last

possible minute to serve their discovery responses and it appears plaintiff was left with little

other option. Plaintiff has shown good faith in attempting to meet and confer with defense

counsel even though he had yet to receive his responses. Pursuant to the discovery and

scheduling order, plaintiff had only until August 10, 2007, in which to file a motion to compel

discovery. Defendants did not serve their responses until August 7, 2007, and plaintiff was

without sufficient time to meet and confer with defense counsel regarding any alleged

deficiencies in the responses before the cut-off date for filing a motion to compel.

////

Case 2:06-cv-01883-MCE -EFB Document 31 Filed 02/25/08 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

3

Defendants object to plaintiff’s “attempt to place the burden on them to go through and

try to figure out to whom plaintiff is addressing each of his requests” by propounding joint

requests to all defendants. Plaintiff states in his motion to compel that his requests are jointly

addressed to each of the defendants and copies were provided to each of the defendants because

they apply to each defendant in the same manner, as each of the defendants are employed by the

same entity at the same facility and are governed by the same rules, regulations, and policies of

the same employer and are being sued jointly in the same action. Indeed, nothing in Rule 33 or

34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires plaintiff to tailor each request individually to

each defendant. Rule 33(a) requires the party served to “furnish such information as is available

to the party.” In determining the availability of the information plaintiff seeks, defendants would

necessarily be required to examine each request as it applies to each defendant. Joint requests

for discovery do not unduly burden defendants beyond the ordinary burden of complying with

discovery requests. That plaintiff is attempting to lend some efficiency to the discovery requests

only speaks further to his good-faith efforts in conducting discovery in this case. Defendants’

objection is untimely, regardless, as it is raised for the first time only in opposition to plaintiff’s

motion to compel.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 9, 2007, request to extend the discovery deadline to and

including September 10, 2007, is granted nunc pro tunc.

2. Plaintiff’s August 14, 2007, motion to compel is granted.

3. Defendants are required to comply with plaintiff’s discovery requests within 30

days of the date this order is served if they have not already done so. 

So ordered. 

Dated: February 25, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01883-MCE -EFB Document 31 Filed 02/25/08 Page 3 of 3