Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00267/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00267-1/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 05-CV-267 J (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD DWAYNE ASHFORD, Civil

No.

05-CV-267 J (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL RESPONSES TO

INTERROGATORIES; 

(2) EXTENDING DISCOVERY CUT-OFF;

AND

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS

[Doc. # 70]

v.

GLOBAL EXPERTISE IN OUTSOURCING

GROUP, INC. (AKA “GEO, INC.”),

Defendant.

This case is brought by a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff Edward Dwayne Ashford

(“Plaintiff” or “Ashford”) alleges that Defendant Global Expertise in Outsourcing Group, Inc.

(“Defendant or “GEO”) confiscated and failed to return certain legal documents he needed for court

proceedings. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories; to extend the current

discovery cut-off to March 30, 2007; and for sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $250.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories is denied as to Interrogatories Nos. 1-9

and granted as to Interrogatory No. 10. Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 seek information such as

the name, length of service, and previous work assignments. These interrogatories appear to be directed

Case 3:05-cv-00267-BTM-CAB Document 78 Filed 03/06/07 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 05-CV-267 J (CAB)

at an individual defendant. The only Defendant in this action is a business entity and cannot answer

interrogatories of such nature. Further, Interrogatories Nos. 4 and 6 seek information regarding any of

Defendant’s policies with respect to an inmate’s legal files, and ask whether Defendant “promulgates

policy” for a certain facility, on an certain date, or regarding certain property. These interrogatories are

vague, ambiguous and compound. Finally, Interrogatory No. 9 asks for information regarding all

lawsuits “ever filed” based on Defendant’s mishandling of personal property. This inquiry is overbroad. 

Interrogatory No. 10 seeks the name of the “African-American sergeant, who on October 8, 2004,

processed Plaintiff out of the GEO Group, Inc. detention facility ... for Plaintiff to be transported to the

U.S. Marshals’ Service Airlift site as it [the name] appears thereon Plaintiff’s property receipt or any

other such documents relevant to that procedure.” Defendant objects to this interrogatory as compound

and vague. The interrogatory asks for the name of one individual and is specific as to this individual’s

identity. The objection is overruled. Defendant shall respond to Interrogatory No. 10 on or before

March 16, 2007. 

Plaintiff’s motion to extend the current discovery cut-off is granted. Discovery in this case shall

proceed until and including March 31, 2007. 

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Defendant for failure to respond to interrogatories is

denied. Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant’s responses were provided in bad faith, or that Plaintiff

sustained damages as a result. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 5, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00267-BTM-CAB Document 78 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2