Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06977/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06977-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06977-HSG (PR)

ORDER REGARDING UNSERVED 

DEFENDANT; DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY MOTION

Re: Dkt. No. 35

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison–Sacramento, proceeding pro se, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials and staff at Salinas Valley State

Prison (“SVSP”), where he was previously incarcerated. On July 9, 2018, the Court screened

plaintiff’s amended complaint and found that it stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim of

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Service was ordered on five defendants. Four 

defendants have been served and have filed a waiver of reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e

(g)(1). This order addresses: (1) the status of the unserved defendant; and (2) plaintiff’s motion 

“requesting that this court determine the sufficiency of the defendants’ answers to plaintiff’s first 

request for interrogatories,” which the Court construes as a motion to compel.

DISCUSSION

A. Unserved Defendant

On July 13, 2018, the summons for defendant Nurse Rodriqez was returned unexecuted 

with the following remark by the United States Marshal: “CDCR is unable to identify an employee 

with given last name.” Dkt. No. 22. On August 6, 2018, plaintiff provided the Court with 

additional identifying information for the unserved defendant, including the fact that she was a 

Case 4:17-cv-06977-HSG Document 37 Filed 10/12/18 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

licensed vocational nurse (“LVN”) with the full name “J. Rodriquez.” Dkt. No. 27. On October 

4, 2018, counsel for the served defendants filed a notice reporting that the SVSP Litigation 

Coordinator could not identify an LVN J. Rodriquez, but that an LVN with a similar name—J. 

Rodriguez—is a current SVSP employee. Dkt. No. 36. Plaintiff will be instructed to notify the 

Court whether this is his intended defendant, pursuant to the instructions below. 

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Plaintiff has filed a motion “requesting that this court determine the sufficiency of the 

defendants’ answers to plaintiff’s first request for interrogatories,” complaining that defendants 

have objected to all nine of his interrogatory requests. Dkt. No. 35 at 1. The Court construes the 

filing as a motion to compel. 

To promote the goal of addressing only very specific disagreements (rather than becoming 

an overseer of all discovery), the court requires that the parties meet and confer to try to resolve 

their disagreements before seeking court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. Local 

Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is a prisoner, the court does not require in-person 

meetings and instead allows the prisoner and defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or 

exchange of letters. Although the format of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of 

the rule remains the same: the parties must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before 

seeking court intervention in any discovery dispute.

The motion to compel will be DENIED because plaintiff fails to certify that he has fulfilled 

the meet and confer requirements under Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

Civil Local Rule 37-1(a). Should plaintiff believe a motion to compel is necessary in the future, 

plaintiff must include a copy of the request for discovery in his motion to compel, and must 

include a certification that describes, in detail, plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer, as well as 

defendants’ responses. The parties are reminded that they must put forth a good faith effort to 

resolve discovery disputes and shall be thorough and specific in their communications with each 

other.

Plaintiff has also filed a “first request for admissions.” Dkt. No. 35 at 2-3. Discovery 

requests and responses normally are exchanged between the parties without any copy being sent to 

Case 4:17-cv-06977-HSG Document 37 Filed 10/12/18 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1) (listing discovery requests and responses that “must not” be 

filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). 

In sum, plaintiff is advised that the court generally is not involved in the discovery process 

and only becomes involved when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses. 

Unless and until plaintiff files the requisite certification demonstrating that he has conferred with 

counsel for defendants, making known his intention to file a motion to compel, the Court will not 

interfere with discovery matters. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff should notify the Court, within fourteen (14) days of the date this order is 

filed, whether the person identified by the SVSP Litigation Coordinator as LVN J. Rodriguez is 

the intended defendant.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice as premature.

This order terminates Dkt. No. 35.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

10/12/2018

Case 4:17-cv-06977-HSG Document 37 Filed 10/12/18 Page 3 of 3