Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00327/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00327-4/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAID YSAGUIRRE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. RODRIGUEZ, SACRAMENTO 

COUNTYSHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-00327 AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34 and 

Eastern District Local Rule 230(l). Defendants G. Rodriguez and the Sacramento County 

Sheriff’s Office move the court for an order compelling Plaintiff Laid Ysaguirre, Sr. to furnish 

responses, without objection, to defendants’ properly served Interrogatories, Set One, and 

Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff did not initially respond 

to the motion, and the undersigned entered an Order to Show Cause directing plaintiff to file a 

response. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff filed a response on August 5, 2024. ECF No. 21. For the 

reasons that follow, the court GRANTS the motion to compel. 

I. Relevant Background 

Plaintiff filed this case as a prisoner proceeding in pro se. ECF No. 1. He filed his 

complaint on February 21, 2023, alleging that he had been arrested with unlawful force in 

Case 2:23-cv-00327-DAD-AC Document 22 Filed 09/27/24 Page 1 of 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 

2 

violation of his Constitutional rights. Id. Plaintiff’s complaint was ordered served (ECF No. 7) 

and following plaintiff’s delay in submitting service documents resulting in an order to show 

cause (ECF No. 10), the complaint was successfully served and defendants answered the 

complaint on November 21, 2023. ECF No. 14. A schedule was entered on January 26, 2024, 

setting a fact discovery deadline of April 14, 2025. ECF No. 18. 

Defendants served plaintiff with Interrogatories and a Request for the Production of 

Documents on March 28, 2024. Declaration of Kelley Kern (“Kern Decl.”) ¶ 3. Plaintiff’s 

responses were due within thirty (30) days. On or about April 1, 2024, the court notified 

defendants that plaintiff’s address had been updated to the Sacramento County Main Jail. 

Defendants reserved plaintiff with the written discovery requests on April 23, 2024. Kern Decl. ¶ 

4. 

II. Motion to Compel 

Defendants filed the motion to compel at bar on June 17, 2024, stating that as of the date 

of filing, plaintiff had failed to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests and no extensions 

had been requested or granted. Kern Decl. ¶ 5. 

A. Applicable Legal Standards 

The scope of discovery in federal cases is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(b)(1). The current Rule states: 

Unless 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 and 

proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of 

the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, 

the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether 

the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be 

admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 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. Relevancy to the subject matter of the litigation “has 

Case 2:23-cv-00327-DAD-AC Document 22 Filed 09/27/24 Page 2 of 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 

3 

been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to 

other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. 

v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Relevance, however, does not establish discoverability;

discovery must also be proportional to the needs of the case.

B. Plaintiff Must Participate in Discovery

It is undisputed that plaintiff has not participated in discovery in this case. Plaintiff’s

response to the motion to compel repeats his substantive claims and does not address the issue of

discovery. As the party prosecuting this case, plaintiff is obligated to participate in the discovery 

process. Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to defendants’ interrogatories waives objections. 

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[g]enerally, 

in the absence of an extension of time or good cause, the failure to object to interrogatories within 

the time fixed by Rule 33. . . constitutes a waiver of any objection”). The failure to timely 

respond to requests for production also waives all objections. Richmark v. Timber Falling 

Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). Because plaintiff has not participated in 

discovery and he offers no explanation for his failure to participate in discovery, the motion to 

compel is GRANTED. 

III. Conclusion

Defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED and plaintiff is ORDERED 

to respond to defendants’ interrogatories, set one, and requests for production, set one, without 

objection, within 30 days of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 27, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-00327-DAD-AC Document 22 Filed 09/27/24 Page 3 of 3