Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00980/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00980-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

18-cv-00980-BAS-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KORY T. O’BRIEN,

Plaintiff, 

v.

LISA GULARTE, et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 18-cv-00980-BAS-MDD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

DISCOVERY RESPONSES

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Kory T. O’Brien (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis, has filed a Motion to Compel (“Motion”) discovery

responses. (ECF No. 58). The dispute pertains to Plaintiff’s propounded

interrogatory requests to Defendants Anthony Ekwosi1, Ed Flores, and Mike 

Bierbaum (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff met and conferred with 

Defendants counsel on November 28, 2019 in an attempt “to resolve issue[s] 

of discovery.” (ECF No. 58-2 at 24). Following the meet and confer, the 

parties were unable to resolve five pending issues: Plaintiff’s interrogatories 

 

1 Plaintiff and Defendants adopt this spelling, instead of “Ewoski” as expressed on the Docket.

Case 3:18-cv-00980-BAS-MDD Document 62 Filed 02/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

18-cv-00980-BAS-MDD

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

numbered 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9. (ECF No. 58-2). 

For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Compel. (ECF No. 58).

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain 

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). 

District courts have broad discretion to limit discovery to prevent its abuse. 

See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2). Courts must limit discovery where the party 

seeking the discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the information 

by discovery in the action,” where the proposed discovery is “unreasonably 

cumulative or duplicative,” or where the information is “obtain[able] from 

some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less 

expensive.” Id. 

DISCUSSION

At issue are Plaintiff’s Interrogatories numbers 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9. 

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion asserting its untimeliness because it 

was brought “more than one hundred days after Defendants served 

responses, and seventy days after the motion to compel cut-off date.” (ECF 

No. 60 at 1). In their Statement of Discovery Dispute, Defendants 

supplemented their responses and object substantively to the Interrogatories 

at issue. (ECF No. 60-1). In addition, Plaintiff further requests reasonable 

expenses in bringing this Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 58).

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely. Plaintiff has 

offered no justification for the delay. The Court could deny Plaintiff’s Motion 

solely due to its untimeliness. However, taking into consideration Plaintiff’s

pro se and incarcerated status, the pending issues will be addressed on their

merits.

Case 3:18-cv-00980-BAS-MDD Document 62 Filed 02/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

18-cv-00980-BAS-MDD

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

A. Interrogatories

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33 governs interrogatories to 

parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. An interrogatory may relate to any matter 

that may be inquired of under Rule 26(b). FED. R. CIV. P. 33(a)(2). The 

responding party must answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate 

objections with specificity or, to the extent the interrogatory is not objected 

to, by “answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under oath.” FED. R. CIV.

P. 33(b). The responding party has the option in certain circumstances to 

answer an interrogatory by specifying responsive records and making those 

records available to the interrogating party. FED. R. CIV. P. 33(d). 

Courts “will generally find [interrogatories] overly broad and unduly 

burdensome on their face to the extent they ask for every fact which supports 

identified allegations.” Hiskett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 180 F.R.D. 403, 404-

05 (D. Kan. 1998). Although interrogatories “need not be phrased with 

technical precision, they should give a reasonably clear indication of the 

information sought by the propounding party.” Heritage Furniture, Inc. v. 

American Heritage, Inc., 28 F.R.D. 319, 320 (D. Conn. 1961). Moreover, 

interrogatories will be quashed, absolving defendants from answering them,

where they are extremely argumentative. Rhodes v. Houston, 258 F. Supp. 

546, 584 (D. Neb. 1966).

a. Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5

The issues regarding the responses to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 

are similar and will be treated together.

Interrogatory No. 2, directed to Defendant Bierbaum, requires him to 

identify whether he reports to L. Gularte about matters in his employ. After 

disputing the question, Defendant Bierbaum supplemented his answer to

“Yes.” This answer is an appropriate response. 

Case 3:18-cv-00980-BAS-MDD Document 62 Filed 02/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

18-cv-00980-BAS-MDD

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

Interrogatory No. 3, directed to Defendant Ekwosi, asks why he allowed 

inmate Thompson to work in Plaintiff’s assigned area knowing Plaintiff 

voiced concerns about violence from inmate Thompson. Defendant Ekwosi 

objected that the request is vague as to the date in question and responded 

that he did not believe inmate Thompson was assigned to work in the sewing 

department on July 17, 2017. Defendant’s response specifically discussed the 

date in question, as alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 1 at 3).

Because Defendant Ekwosi asserted that he did not believe inmate 

Thompson was assigned to that area, on the date in question, his response is

satisfactory.

Interrogatory No. 4, directed to Defendant Bierbaum, requires him to 

identify whether he allowed inmate Thompson to work in his department 

after Plaintiff voiced concerns for his safety. Defendant Bierbaum first 

responded that Plaintiff did not voice any concerns to him. His initial 

response was deficient. In his amended responses, Defendant Bierbaum 

clarified that he was not aware of Plaintiff’s concerns. This response is 

satisfactory because Defendant Bierbaum was not made aware of Plaintiff’s 

concerns and would not be able to answer whether he allowed inmate 

Thompson in the sewing department after being informed of such concerns.

Interrogatory No. 5, directed to Defendant Flores, requires him to 

identify why he, along with his co-worker, Defendant Ekwosi, allowed inmate 

Thompson to stay in the sewing department. Defendant Flores asserted that 

he does not have authority over job assignments and further detailed the 

process of inmate assignment. As Defendant Flores does not have authority 

to assign inmates to specific areas, he is unable to express why inmate 

Thompson was assigned to the sewing department. Therefore, his answer is 

sufficient. 

Case 3:18-cv-00980-BAS-MDD Document 62 Filed 02/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

18-cv-00980-BAS-MDD

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

Accordingly, Defendant’s supplemental responses, in their Statement of 

Discovery Dispute, are adequate and satisfactory answers to Plaintiff’s 

interrogatories. No further responses are required from Defendants as to 

interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 

3, 4, and 5 is therefore DENIED.

b. Interrogatory No. 9

Interrogatory No. 9, directed to Defendant Ekwosi, asks: 

“Defendant A. Ekwosi, as a state official employee of CALPIA, 

is there any policy that you, A. Ekwosi, were allowed to sin[] that 

your comprehension of the English language would not allow the 

understanding of the English Language word of “comfort” as 

defined in the Oxford New Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus Third 

Edition copy right 2009 printed 2009 to mean as the state of 

physical well-being? If so please indicate policy.”

(ECF No. 58-2 at 15). 

Defendant Ekwosi objects on grounds that the interrogatory 1) lacks

foundation, 2) is argumentative, and 3) is vague and ambiguous.

Interrogatory No. 9 is argumentative and vague. Defendant Ekwosi’s 

objection is sustained and no further response is required. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Interrogatory No. 4,

propounded to Defendant Ekwosi, is DENIED.

B. Expenses for bringing a motion to compel

Plaintiff requests the sum of $300.00, to be paid by Defendants, as a 

reasonable expense in obtaining this Motion “pursuant to Rule 37 (a)(4).” 

(ECF No. 58 at 1). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c)(3) provides that “Rule 

37(a)(5) applies to the award of expenses.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(3). Having 

Case 3:18-cv-00980-BAS-MDD Document 62 Filed 02/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

18-cv-00980-BAS-MDD

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

denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, there is no basis for an award of 

expenses against Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). 

Plaintiff’s request for expenses, under Rule 37(a)(5), is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED. The 

Court finds the responses provided by Defendants are sufficient under the 

Rules. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for expenses is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-00980-BAS-MDD Document 62 Filed 02/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6