Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06532/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06532-4/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

 In light of plaintiff’s incarceration, the exchange of letters satisfies the meet and confer requirement.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN L. MURPHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVEN CAMBRA, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-CV-6532-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL

(Doc. 77)

Plaintiff Kevin L. Murphy (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (Americans with Disabilities Act), and 29

U. S. C. § 794 (Rehabilitation Act). On April 26, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (Doc.

77.) Defendant Cambra (“defendant”) filed an opposition on May 15, 2006. (Docs. 81-83.)

Pursuant to the court’s order of September 12, 2005, prior to filing a motion to compel, the

moving party must, in good faith, meet and confer, or attempt to meet and confer, to resolve the

discovery dispute without court intervention.1 (Doc. 70, ¶5.) If a motion to compel is filed, the

moving party must include a certification that the party in good faith met and conferred, or attempted

to meet and confer, to resolve the dispute without court intervention. 

Defendant asserts that although plaintiff conferred concerning the request for the production

of documents, plaintiff made no attempt to resolve the dispute concerning the interrogatories prior

to filing a motion to compel. In his motion, plaintiff neither specifically asserts he attempted to meet

Case 1:01-cv-06532-OWW -LJO Document 89 Filed 06/19/06 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

and confer regarding his interrogatories nor submits evidence demonstrating he attempted to meet

and confer regarding his interrogatories, and plaintiff did not reply to defendant’s opposition raising

the issue. Accordingly, plaintiff is precluded at this time from seeking an order compelling further

responses to his interrogatories because he did not comply with the good faith meet and confer

requirement.

In order for the court to adjudicate a motion to compel, the moving party must provide a copy

of the discovery requests at issue and a copy of the response to the requests, if any. Further, the

moving party bears the burden of explaining why the discovery sought is necessary and why the

opposing party’s objection or response is inadequate and/or incorrect. In this instance, although

plaintiff provided copies of the requests and responses, he did not set forth any argument as to why

defendant’s responses to his request for the production of documents were improper, other than to

assert defendant was “evasive.” (Doc. 77, p. 2.) Because plaintiff’s motion lacks this necessary

information, it must be denied.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed April 26, 2006, is HEREBY

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06532-OWW -LJO Document 89 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2