Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701-24/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K‟NAPP,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S 

MOTIONS TO COMPEL

(Docs. 108, 109, 110, 113; also resolves 

Doc. 120.)

ORDER REOPENING DISCOVERY FOR 

LIMITED PURPOSE

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE 

TO SERVE EACH DEFENDANT UP TO

TWENTY- FIVE REQUESTS FOR 

ADMISSIONS AS INSTRUCTED BY THIS 

ORDER

30-DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO 

SERVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

New Deadline To Complete Discovery: 06/30/14 

New Deadline To File Dispositive Motions: 08/29/14 

 

I. BACKGROUND

 Eric Charles Rodney K=napp (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the 

Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, against defendants 

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 15
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

Warden Derral G. Adams, Lieutenant (ALt.@) E. Smith, Lt. J. T. Tucker, Associate Warden S. 

Sherman, and D. Selvy (Classification Services Representative), for retaliating against Plaintiff

by confining him in Ad-Seg under false pretenses and transferring him to another prison, and 

against defendants K. Motty, Sgt. C. Pugliese, Lt. Smith, R. Guerrero, Appeals Coordinator 

Cooper, Appeals Coordinator V. R. Garcia, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Does 1-5 

(Mailroom Workers) for interfering with his right to send mail in violation of the First 

Amendment.1 (Doc. 16.) 

On January 4, 2013, the court issued a Scheduling Order establishing pretrial deadlines 

for the parties to this action, including a deadline of September 4, 2013 to complete discovery. 

(Doc. 98.) The discovery deadline has not been extended; however, Defendants requested and 

were granted two extensions of time to respond to Plaintiff‟s Requests for Admissions, causing 

their responses to be due after the discovery deadline had expired. (Docs. 103, 105, 106, 107.)

Now pending are four motions to compel further discovery responses filed by Plaintiff:

(1) On September 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to 

produce documents in response to Plaintiff‟s First Request for Production of 

Documents. (Doc. 108.);

(2) On October 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to deem all 

challenged statements in Plaintiff First Request for Admissions admitted, or in 

the alternative, to compel Defendants to make further responses to Plaintiff‟s 

First Request for Admissions. (Doc. 109.);

(3) On November 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to deem all 

challenged statements in Plaintiff Second Request for Admissions admitted, or 

 

1On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff‟s claims for retaliation based on allegations that defendants (1) denied him 

indigent correspondence supplies, (2) delayed his mail, (3) obstructed his outgoing mail, (4) denied him all but the 

May 2005 issue of his subscription of Prison Legal News, (5) issued a false disciplinary write-up against Plaintiff 

for having a clothesline inside his cell, and (6) instructed CDCR personnel at SATF to limit Plaintiff to a sixtyminute non-contact visit with a visitor who had come over 250 miles to see him, were dismissed by the Court 

based on Plaintiff=s failure to exhaust remedies before filing suit. (Doc. 88.) The Court also dismissed defendants 

Meaders, Cuevas, and Johnson from this action, based on Plaintiff‟s failure to exhaust remedies for the claims 

against them before filing suit. (Id.) All other claims and defendants, other than those listed above, were 

dismissed from this action by the Court on August 17, 2009, based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 29.)

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 15
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

27

28

in the alternative, to compel Defendants to make further responses to Plaintiff‟s 

Second Request for Admissions. (Doc. 110.); and

(4) On November 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to deem all 

challenged statements in Plaintiff Third Request for Admissions admitted, or in 

the alternative, to compel Defendants to make further responses to Plaintiff‟s 

Third Request for Admissions. (Doc. 113.)

On January 23, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff‟s three Motions to 

Compel Admissions identified above as (2), (3), and (4). (Doc. 116.) On January 30, 2014, 

Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendants‟ opposition. (Doc. 117.) 

On February 6, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff‟s Motion to Compel 

Production of Documents identified above as (1). (Doc. 119.) On February 14, 2014, Plaintiff 

filed a reply to Defendants‟ opposition. (Doc. 120.)

Plaintiff‟s four Motions to Compel are now before the court.

II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS

The acts Plaintiff complains of in the Second Amended Complaint allegedly occurred at 

the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (“SATF”) in Corcoran, 

California, while Plaintiff was housed there for approximately five months from March 18, 

2005 to August 23, 2005. (Doc. 16 at 8:4-9). Plaintiff now proceeds on two claims: 

interference with outgoing mail and retaliation.

Outgoing Mail

In his first claim, Plaintiff alleges a series of events wherein defendants Appeals 

Coordinators (C. L. Cooper, V. R. Garcia, and R. Hall), Mailroom Workers (K. Motty, R. 

Guerrero and Does 1-5), Sergeant Pugliese, and Lieutenant E. Smith variously delayed his 

outgoing mail due to issues of Plaintiff‟s compliance with indigent mailing requirements or 

regulations. (2d Amd Cmp, Doc. 16 at 21-42.) 

Prisoners have “a First Amendment right to send and receive mail.” Witherow v. Paff, 

52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995). Challenges to prison restrictions that are asserted to inhibit 

First Amendment interests must be analyzed in terms of the legitimate policies and goals of the 

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 15
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

corrections system. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974). Censorship of outgoing prisoner 

mail is justified if the following criteria are met: (1) the regulation furthers “an important or 

substantial government interest unrelated to the suppression of expression” and (2) “the 

limitation on First Amendment freedoms must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the 

protection of the particular governmental interest involved.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 

396, 413 (1974) (overturned by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989) only as 

test relates to incoming mail - Turner test applies to incoming mail).

Retaliation

In his second claim, Plaintiff alleges that defendants Warden Derral G. Adams, 

Associate Warden S. Sherman, Lt. E. Smith, Lt. J. T. Tucker, and Classification Services 

Representative D. Selvy retaliated against Plaintiff for his filing of inmate appeals by confining 

him in Ad-Seg under false pretenses and transferring him to another prison. (2d Amd Cmp at 

52-53). 

“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five 

basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate 

(2) because of (3) that prisoner‟s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the 

inmate‟s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance 

a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). An 

allegation of retaliation against a prisoner‟s First Amendment right to file a prison grievance is 

sufficient to support a claim under section 1983. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 

2003).

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Rule 26(b)(1) – Scope of Discovery in General

A[U]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties 

may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or 

defense C including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any 

documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any 

discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to 

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 4 of 15
5

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

the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the 

trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

B. Rule 401 – Test for Relevant Evidence

“Evidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable

than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the 

action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401.

C. Rule 26(b)(2) – Limitations on Frequency and Extent

“On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery 

otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is 

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more 

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample 

opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or expense 

of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the 

amount in controversy, the parties‟ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, 

and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). “By 

order or local rule, the court may also limit the number of requests under Rule 36.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A).

D. Rule 34 – Production of Documents

AA party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to 

produce and permit the requesting party . . . to inspect [and] copy . . . any designated 

documents . . . in the responding party‟s possession, custody or control.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 

34(a)(1). “The request must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of 

items to be inspected.” Fed. R. Civ. P 34(b)(1)(A). The party to whom the request is directed 

must respond in writing within 30 days of being served that inspection and related activities 

will be permitted as requested, or state an objection to the request, including the reasons. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2).

///

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 5 of 15
6

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

E. Rule 36 – Requests for Admissions

AA party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the 

pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to (1) 

facts, the application of law to fact, or the opinions about either; and (2) the genuineness of any 

described documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). “Each matter must be separately stated[, and a] 

request to admit the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a copy of the 

document unless it is, or has been, otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and 

copying.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(2).

Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) requires one of three answers to a 

request for admission: (1) an admission; (2) a denial; or (3) a statement detailing why the 

answering party is unable to admit or deny the matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4); Asea, Inc. v. 

Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242 (9th Cir.1981). AThe grounds for objecting to a 

request must be stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5).

“The requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection. 

Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served. On finding 

that an answer does not comply with this rule, the court may order either that the matter is 

admitted or than an amended answer be served.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). 

AThe Advisory Committee Notes to the 1970 amendment to Rule 36 explain the 

purposes of Rule 36: >Rule 36 serves two vital purposes, both of which are designed to reduce 

trial time. Admissions are sought, first to facilitate proof with respect to issues that cannot be 

eliminated from the case, and secondly, to narrow the issues by eliminating those that can be.= 

In short, >[t]he purpose of Rule 36(a) is to expedite trial by establishing certain material facts as 

true and thus narrowing the range of issues for trial.=@ A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 237 

F.R.D. 250, 254 (C.D.Ca. July 5, 2006) (quoting Asea, 669 F.2d at 1245). A>Parties may not 

view requests for admission as a mere procedural exercise requiring minimally acceptable 

conduct. They should focus on the goal of the Rules, full and efficient discovery, not evasion 

and word play.=@ A. Farber & Partners, Inc., 237 F.R.D. at 254 (quoting Marchand v. Mercy 

Med. Ctr., 22 F.3d 933, 936-37 (9th Cir.1994)). 

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 6 of 15
7

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

AAs the Ninth Circuit has further held, [Rule 36] was amended in 1970 to adopt the 

majority view that a party may not refuse to admit or deny a request for admission based upon a 

lack of personal knowledge if the information relevant to the request is reasonably available to 

him. 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ' 2261, at 731 (1970).@ A. 

Farber & Partners, Inc., 237 F.R.D. at 254 (quoting Asea, 669 F.2d at 1245 (citation omitted)). 

AAs the Advisory Committee's Note explains, the Rule is >in keeping with a basic principle of 

the discovery rules that a reasonable burden may be imposed on the parties when its discharge 

will facilitate preparation for trial and ease the trial process.=@ Id. AThus, Rule 36 requires the 

responding party to make a reasonable inquiry, a reasonable effort, to secure information that is 

readily obtainable from persons and documents within the responding party's relative control 

and to state fully those efforts.@ A. Farber & Partners, Inc., 237 F.R.D. at 254. ASuch 

reasonable inquiry includes an investigation and inquiry of employees, agents, and others, who 

conceivably, but in realistic terms, may have information which may lead to or furnish the 

necessary and appropriate response.@ Id. AThe inquiry may require venturing beyond the 

parties to the litigation and include, under certain limited circumstances, non-parties . . . The 

operative words then are >reasonable= and >due diligence.=@ Id. (citing Henry v. Champlain 

Enter, Inc., 212 F.R.D. 73, 78 (N.D.N.Y.2003) (citations omitted); T. Rowe Price Small-Cap 

Fund, Inc. v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 38, 43 (S.D.N.Y.1997); Herrera v. Scully, 

143 F.R.D. 545, 548 (S.D.N.Y.1992)). AAt a minimum, >a party must make inquiry of a third 

party when there is some identity of interest manifested, such as by both being parties to the 

litigation, a present or prior relationship of mutual concerns, or their active cooperation in the 

litigation, and when there is no manifest or potential conflict between the party and the third 

party.=@ A. Farber & Partners, Inc., 237 F.R.D. at 254 (quoting Uniden America Corp. v. 

Ericsson Inc., 181 F.R.D. 302, 304 (M.D.N.C.1998)).

In Asea, supra, the Ninth Circuit held that a response which fails to admit or deny a 

proper request for admission does not comply with the requirements of Rule 36(a) if the 

answering party has not, in fact, made >reasonable inquiry,= or if information >readily 

obtainable= is sufficient to enable him to admit or deny the matter . . . Although the district 

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 7 of 15
8

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

court should ordinarily first order an amended answer, and deem the matter admitted only if a 

sufficient answer is not timely filed, this determination, like most involved in the oversight of 

discovery, is left to the sound discretion of the district judge.@ Asea, 669 F.2d at 1247. 

F. Rule 37 – Motions to Compel

A party propounding discovery may seek an order compelling disclosure when an 

opposing party has failed to respond or has provided evasive or incomplete responses. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). A[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be 

treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). AIt is well 

established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a 

waiver of any objection.@ Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 

(9th Cir.1992) (citing Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir.1981)). The moving 

party bears the burden of demonstrating Aactual and substantial prejudice@ from the denial of 

discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted.).

If a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, the court may issue 

further just orders which may include compelling compliance with the order or imposing 

sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).

IV. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff brings a motion to compel Defendants to comply with the court‟s order of 

August 2, 2013, which required Defendants to respond to Plaintiff‟s First Request for 

Production of Documents. Plaintiff also requests the imposition of sanctions for Defendants‟ 

failure to produce the requested documents or properly respond to Plaintiff‟s Request. Plaintiff 

asserts that Defendants failed to produce any documents whatsoever, and argues that their 

responses failed to comply with federal discovery rules.

Defendants assert that they responded as best they could, but Plaintiff did not specify 

specific documents, leaving Defendants to guess at which documents or items he was seeking. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff‟s requests are overbroad, and that Plaintiff failed to describe the 

sought items with reasonable particularity.

///

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 8 of 15
9

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

Plaintiff replies by requesting that Defendants‟ opposition to the motion to compel be 

stricken from the record as untimely and procedurally defective, and to impose sanctions. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants‟ opposition, filed more than eighty days after Plaintiff‟s motion 

to compel was filed and served, and more than two weeks after the court ordered Defendants to 

file their opposition, was clearly untimely under Local Rule 230(l) and out of compliance with 

the court‟s order. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not shown good cause for their failure 

to comply with court rules, the court‟s order, and the discovery schedule.

Plaintiff also argues that Defendants‟ opposition of February 6, 2014, is completely 

nonresponsive to his motion to compel of September 17, 2013.

Discussion

Plaintiff‟s Request for Production of Documents (R-POD) contains thirty-nine requests. 

(Attachment 1 to Doc. 108 at 11-13.) Each of the first twenty-nine requests seeks “any and all 

documents” related to allegations found in specified numbered paragraphs in the Second 

Amended Complaint. (Id.) For example, the first three requests state as follows:

1. Any and all documents related to the allegations at ¶¶ 17-20 in Plaintiff‟s 

complaint concerning Defendants Adams, Cooper, Garcia, Hall, 

Pugliese, and Smith. 

2. Any and all documents related to the allegations at ¶¶ 21-25 in Plaintiff‟s

complaint concerning Defendants Adams, Cooper, Garcia, Hall, 

Pugliese, and Sherman.

3. Any and all documents related to the allegations at ¶¶ 26 and 27 in 

Plaintiff‟s complaint.”

Each of the last ten requests seeks “any and all documents” related to Defendants‟ 

affirmative defenses, as specified in each request. (Id. at 3.) For example:

30. Any and all documents related to the affirmative defense in your 

Answers that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted.

31. Any and all documents related to the affirmative defense in your 

Answers that Plaintiff‟s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of 

limitations.

32. Any and all documents related to the affirmative defense in your 

Answers that Plaintiff„s complaint is barred by the U.S. Constitution‟s 

Eleventh Amendment.

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 9 of 15
10

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

Defendants responded in writing to each of Plaintiff‟s thirty-nine Requests on 

September 4, 2013, with objections or other responses, without producing any documents. 

(Attachment 2 to Doc. 108 at 16-29.)

Plaintiff‟s Requests are unquestionably overbroad. Plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 

34‟s requirement to “describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be 

inspected.” Fed. R. Civ. P 34(b)(1)(A). Without more specific guidelines, it is impossible for 

Defendants to determine which of the documents in their control Plaintiff expects them to 

produce, or to know when they have completed searching for documents in response to the 

requests. Plaintiff‟s requests for “any and all documents” related to particular allegations or 

affirmative defenses do not set reasonable boundaries. Therefore, Plaintiff‟s motion to compel 

further production of documents shall be denied.

IV. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL ADMISSIONS

Plaintiff has filed three motions to compel admissions, requesting the court to determine 

the sufficiency of Defendants‟ responses to his First, Second, and Third sets of Requests for 

Admissions. (Docs. 109, 110, 113.) Plaintiff requests the court to order all contested matters 

admitted, or require Defendants to file further responses. 

A. Motion re First Request for Admissions (Doc. 109.)

Plaintiff asserts that on June 11, 2013, he served his First Request for Admissions, 

containing sixty-one numbered requests, upon each of eight defendants: Adams, Cooper, 

Garcia, Guerrero, Hall, Motty, Pugliese, and Smith. (Motion, Doc. 109 at 6:28-30; Attachment 

1.) On October 1, 2013, Plaintiff received responses to each of the sixty-one requests from 

each of the eight defendants. (Id. at 6:31-32; Attachments 2-9.) Plaintiff requests the court to 

review defendants‟ responses to his requests for admissions (RFA) 2-26, 28-45, and 47-61, and 

either deem them admitted or require defendants to serve amended responses. 

B. Motion re Second Request for Admissions (Doc. 110.)

Plaintiff asserts that on June 12, 2013, he served his Second Request for Admissions, 

containing one hundred forty numbered requests, upon each of five defendants: Adams, Selvy, 

Sherman, Smith, and Tucker. (Motion, Doc. 110 at 6:28-29; Attachment 1 at 40-49.) On 

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 10 of 15
11

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

October 1, 2013, Plaintiff received responses to each of the one hundred forty requests from 

each of the five defendants. (Id. at 6:30-31; Attachments 2-6.) Plaintiff requests the court to 

review defendants‟ responses to his RFA 1-23, 25, 26, 28-40, 42-46, 48-54, 56-63, 65-76, 78, 

79, 81-98, 100-107, 109-113, 115, 116, 118, 122-129, and 131-140, and either deem them 

admitted or require defendants to serve amended responses. 

B. Motion re Third Request for Admissions (Doc. 113.)

Plaintiff asserts that on June 20, 2013, he served his Third Request for Admissions, 

containing two hundred eighty numbered requests, upon each of eight defendants: Adams, 

Cooper, Garcia, Guerrero, Hall, Motty, Pugliese, and Smith. (Motion, Doc. 113 at 7:6-7; Doc. 

114, Attachment 1.) On October 1, 2013, Plaintiff received responses to each of the two 

hundred eighty requests from each of the eight defendants. (Id. at 7:8-9; Attachments 2-9.) 

Plaintiff requests the court to review defendants‟ responses to RFA 1-280, and either deem 

them admitted or require defendants to serve amended responses. 

C. Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions (Doc. 116.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff‟s motions to compel further responses to his three sets of 

Requests for Admissions should be denied because some of his requests are unrelated or 

irrelevant to the claims at issue in this action, and Defendants properly objected and responded 

to Plaintiff‟s requests. Defendants assert that Plaintiff propounded requests directed at 

Defendants‟ knowledge of people who are not associated with this action. (e.g., Plaintiff‟s 

Requests for Admissions Set Two, nos. 14, 16, 21, 59, 66, and 67.) Defendants also assert that 

Plaintiff repeatedly requests information regarding his mother or her organization, concerning 

claims which were dismissed from this action. (e.g., Plaintiff‟s Requests for Admissions Set 

Two, nos. 17-20, 33, 36-38, 48, 51-53, 57, 60-62, 89-94, and 125-128.) Defendants also assert

that Plaintiff has propounded extensive requests based on his grievances and his placement at 

various times in administrative segregation. (e.g., Plaintiff‟s Requests for Admissions Set Two, 

nos. 9-13, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 54, 55, 63-65, and 68-87.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff‟s Requests for Admissions propounded on individual 

defendants appear to be identical and not specifically tailored to each defendant, although the 

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 11 of 15
12

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

defendants held different positions at the prison and had differing responsibilities. Defendants 

argue that most of Plaintiff‟s Requests are objectionable, requiring legal conclusions not 

appropriate for requests for admissions, asking for information easily obtainable from another 

source, or are speculative, vague, and/or ambiguous. Defendants argue that the whole point of 

Plaintiff‟s requests appears to be to harass Defendants and their counsel. 

Defendants assert that they responded to over two thousand requests, and the likely 

benefit of answering again is far outweighed by the burden. In the event that some of 

Defendants‟ responses are inadequate, Defendants request the court to limit Plaintiff to twentyfive requests for admission only, requiring him to reformulate his requests as contemplated by 

Rule 36.

D. Plaintiff’s Reply

Plaintiff requests the court to impose sanctions on Defendants for failure to comply with 

the court‟s order requiring them to file a response to each of Plaintiff‟s motions to compel, 

rather than filing only one response addressing multiple motions. Plaintiff argues that 

Defendants have waived their rights to oppose Plaintiff‟s motions because they failed, in their 

opposition, to dispute any of the facts, evidence, arguments, or legal authorities set forth in 

Plaintiff‟s motions. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have made only conclusory assertions 

without citing authority. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants are uncooperative, impractical, 

and non-sensible in responding to his Requests for Admissions and his Motions to Compel.

E. Discussion

Plaintiff served more than 300 Requests for Admissions on each of 8 defendants, and 

140 Requests for Admissions on each of 5 defendants, requiring Defendants to make more than 

3,300 responses, collectively. As discussed above, it serves the principle of the discovery rules 

to impose a reasonable burden on the parties when its discharge will facilitate preparation for 

trial and ease the trial process. In this case, however, responding to this number of Requests is 

over burdensome. The court finds many of Plaintiff‟s Requests to be vague, duplicative, 

ambiguous, or concern multiple or irrelevant matters, requiring Defendants to expend excess 

time and resources in an attempt to make reasoned responses. Under Rule 36, “[e]ach matter 

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 12 of 15
13

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

must be separately stated” to enable the responding party to simply “admit,” “deny,” or 

concisely respond why the party is unable to admit or deny. Fed. R. Civ. P 36(a)(2),(4). 

Plaintiff failed to comply with this directive.

With respect to Defendants‟ responses, the court finds many of them to contain 

boilerplate objections which are not specific to Plaintiff‟s Requests or to requests for 

admissions in general. Defendants appear to be unaware that requests for admissions may 

properly relate to the application of law to fact, or the opinions about either. Defendants have 

objected to many of Plaintiff‟s Requests as “vague as to time” when the Requests clearly state 

“[a]t all times relevant to Plaintiff‟s complaint.” (See, e.g., RFA Set Two nos. 2-10, Doc. 110 

at 216-219.) As discussed above, the parties may not view requests for admission as a mere 

procedural exercise requiring minimally acceptable conduct and should focus on the goal of the 

Rules, full and efficient discovery. Defendants failed to comply with this directive.

In light of the volume and deficiencies of the requests and responses, the court lacks the 

time and resources to properly review over 3,000 requests and responses. Therefore, Plaintiff‟s

three motions to compel admissions shall be denied, and Plaintiff shall be granted an 

opportunity to serve further requests for admissions. Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days in 

which to serve up to 25 requests for admissions upon each of the 11 defendants, and discovery 

shall be reopened for this limited purpose. Defendants are required to respond to the requests 

within thirty days of the date of service of the requests. If the parties require an extension of 

time, they should file a motion for extension of time before their thirty-day deadlines expire. 

Each of Plaintiff‟s requests must relate to a specific fact, the application of law to fact, 

or opinions about either, or the genuineness of any described document. A request to admit 

the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a copy of the document. Plaintiff must 

fashion his requests to enable Defendants to either “admit,” “deny,” or answer concisely why 

they are unable to admit or deny. Plaintiff‟s requests may only concern matters relevant to the 

two claims upon which this action now proceeds, and Plaintiff must be specific in his 

descriptions of persons, places, times, events, versions of documents, etc., without ambiguity.

///

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 13 of 15
14

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

Requests should pertain to the individual Defendant who is asked to respond and should not be 

unreasonably duplicative or cumulative. 

Defendants must fashion their responses to address each specific request and avoid 

boilerplate objections. As discussed above, a defendant may not refuse to admit or deny a 

request for admission based upon a lack of personal knowledge if the information relevant to 

the request is reasonably available to him. Rule 36 requires the responding party to make a 

reasonable inquiry, a reasonable effort, to secure information that is readily obtainable from 

persons and documents within the responding party's relative control, and to state fully those 

efforts. 

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s motion to compel production of documents, filed on September 23, 

2013, is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff‟s motion to compel re First Set of Requests for Admissions, filed on 

October 28, 2013, is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff‟s motion to compel re Second Set of Requests for Admissions, filed on 

November 4, 2013, is DENIED;

4. Plaintiff‟s motion to compel re Third Set of Requests for Admissions, filed on 

November 25, 2013, is DENIED;

5. Plaintiff is granted leave to serve up to 25 requests for admission upon each of 

the 11 Defendants, within thirty days from the date of service of this order, as 

instructed by this order;

6. Defendants shall serve their responses to Plaintiff‟s requests for admissions 

within thirty days of the date of service of the requests, as instructed by this 

order;

7. Discovery is reopened until June 30, 2014, for the limited purpose of the 

parties‟ service of requests for admissions and responses pursuant to this order, 

and the filing of related motions to compel;

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 14 of 15
15

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

8. The deadline for the parties to file and serve pretrial dispositive motions is 

extended to August 29, 2014; and

9. Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 03/11/14 Page 15 of 15