Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02348/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02348-12/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

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CATE, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-02348-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 

INTERROGATORIES

(ECF No. 51)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on an equal protection claim against Defendant 

Doran.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his first set of 

interrogatories. He claims the responses received from Defendant were not verified and are 

not full and complete. 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Discovery Motions

The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith. Asea, Inc. 

v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981). Parties may obtain 

Case 1:10-cv-02348-LJO-MJS Document 53 Filed 04/14/14 Page 1 of 4
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

discovery regarding any non-privileged 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). Relevant information need 

not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

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. E.g., 

Grabek v. Dickinson, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan.13, 2012); Mitchell v. Felker, 

2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 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. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack v. Virga, 2011 WL 6703958, 

at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011).

Courts in the Eastern District of California have required, “at a minimum, [that] the 

moving party plaintiff has the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery requests are 

the subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of the defendant's responses are disputed, 

(3) why he believes the defendant's responses are deficient, (4) why the defendant's 

objections are not justified, and (5) why the information he seeks through discovery is 

relevant to the prosecution of this action.” Walker v. Karelas, 2009 WL 3075575, at *1 (E.D. 

Cal. Sep. 21, 2009); Brooks v. Alameida, 2009 WL 331358, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009).

The court must limit discovery if the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs its 

likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). “In each instance [of discovery], the 

determination whether . . . information is discoverable because it is relevant to the claims or 

defenses depends on the circumstances of the pending action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory 

Case 1:10-cv-02348-LJO-MJS Document 53 Filed 04/14/14 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Committee's note (2000 Amendment) (Gap Report) (Subdivision (b)(1)).

B. Interrogatories

A party may propound interrogatories relating to any matter that may be inquired into 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). An interrogatory is not objectionable merely 

because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to 

fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a).

The responding party is obligated to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest 

extent possible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). Any objections must be stated with specificity. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). The responding party shall use common sense and reason in its 

responses; hyper-technical, quibbling, or evasive objections will not be viewed favorably by 

the court. Haney v. Saldana, 2010 WL 3341939 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug.24, 2010). Further, the 

responding party has a duty to supplement any responses if the information sought is later 

obtained or the response provided needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).

All grounds for objection to an interrogatory must be stated “with specificity.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 33(b)(4); see Nagele v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 193 F.R.D. 94, 109 

(W.D.N.Y. 2000) (objection that interrogatories were “burdensome” overruled because 

objecting party failed to “particularize” the basis for objection); see also Mancia v. 

Mayflower Textile Services Co., 253 F.R.D. 354, 358 (D.Md. 2008) (boiler-plate objections 

waived any legitimate objections responding party may have had); Chubb Integrated Sys., 

Ltd. v. National Bank of Wash., 103 F.R.D. 52, 58 (D.D.C. 1984) (the objecting party must 

state reasons for any objection, “irrelevant” did not fulfill party's burden to explain its 

objections); Mitchell v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 208 F.R.D. 455, 458 at n.4 (D.D.C.

2002) (objections must explain how request or interrogatory is overbroad or unduly 

burdensome); Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discovery Card Services, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 295, 310 (D.

Kan. 1996) (objection on grounds as vague and ambiguous overruled if reason and 

Case 1:10-cv-02348-LJO-MJS Document 53 Filed 04/14/14 Page 3 of 4
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

4

common sense to attribute ordinary definitions to terms and phrases provided needed 

clarity).

II. DISCUSSION

Procedural deficiencies in Plaintiff’s motion leave the Court unable to grant it.

Plaintiff does not identify which interrogatories, responses and objections are in issue and 

why. He does not include Defendant’s responses or objections. In short, there is insufficient 

information to enable the Court to evaluate whether or not he is entitled to any relief. 

Accordingly, his motion must be denied.

The motion will be denied without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling it in a manner that 

complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules.

III. ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion 

to compel further responses to his set one interrogatories (ECF No. 51) is DENIED without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-02348-LJO-MJS Document 53 Filed 04/14/14 Page 4 of 4