Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01893/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01893-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND D. JACKSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1893 LKK DAD P

vs.

NADIM K. KHOURY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendants have filed a motion to compel plaintiff to respond to three sets of

requests for interrogatories without objection. Defendants offer evidence that their requests were

served on plaintiff on August 23, 2007, and that plaintiff failed to respond in any way. Plaintiff

has not filed opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion.

Plaintiff is in violation of multiple court orders and rules. First, plaintiff failed to

respond to defendants’ motion. Pursuant to the order filed in this action on April 3, 2007, all

motions concerning discovery shall be briefed by the parties pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m). 

(Order filed Apr. 3, 2007 at 3.) The same order cautions that failure to oppose a motion timely

may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. (Id. at 3.) Second, the discovery order

filed in this action on June 18, 2007, provides that responses to written discovery requests shall

be served on the requesting party no later than forty-five days after the request was first served. 

Case 2:06-cv-01893-LKK -DAD Document 40 Filed 01/14/08 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

2

(Order filed June 18, 2007, at 1.) The order further provides that, “[i]f disputes arise about the

parties’ obligations to respond to requests for discovery, the parties shall comply with all

pertinent rules,” including the briefing requirements of Local Rule 78-230(m). (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff did not serve responses to defendants’ discovery requests within forty-five days, did not

seek an extension of time to respond to defendants’ requests, and did not respond to defendants’

motion to compel. For these reasons, the court will grant defendants’ motion to compel

discovery pursuant to Rule 37(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and require

plaintiff to serve responses without objections.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ October 26, 2007 motion to compel is granted;

2. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant Khoury’s First Request for Responses to

Interrogatories, Defendant Andreasen’s First Request for Responses to Interrogatories, and

Defendant Schwartz’s First Request for Responses to Interrogatories without objections; and

3. Plaintiff’s responses shall be served on defendants’ counsel within twenty days

from the date of this order and shall also be filed with the court with proof of service on

defendants’ counsel.

DATED: January 14, 2008.

DAD:9

jack1893.mtc

Case 2:06-cv-01893-LKK -DAD Document 40 Filed 01/14/08 Page 2 of 2