Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00665/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00665-21/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK JONES, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTHONY COOPER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00665-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING AND

PARTIALLY DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 82)

Plaintiff Frederick Jones, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 30, 2010, Defendants

filed a motion to compel. (Doc. #82.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion

to compel.

I. Defendants’ Motion to Compel

Defendants’ motion to compel concerns Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ interrogatories,

requests for admission, and requests for production of documents. Defendants complain that

Plaintiff responded to their interrogatories with a blanket objection that stated that “[r]esponse to

def’s special interrogatories set one is objected to on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and

overbroad.” (Statement Re: Discovery Disagreement 4:6-9.) Defendants contend that their

interrogatories were not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad because the interrogatories were based on

allegations taken directly from Plaintiff’s second amended complaint.

Defendants also challenge Plaintiff’s responses to their requestsfor production of documents.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s objections were unresponsive and improper because Plaintiff

1

Case 1:06-cv-00665-LJO -SKO Document 102 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 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

only provided a series of evasive boilerplate objections. Defendants requested documents that

support the allegations Plaintiff made in his second amended complaint.

Defendants also complain that Plaintiff provided a blanket objection in response to their

requests for admission. Plaintiff wrote “‘[r]esponse to defendants[sic] request for admission

number’s[sic] 1-19 are hereby objected to on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. 

Plaintiff will not admit that there is no evidence or facts to support the allegations in the second

amended complaint!’” (Statement Re: Discovery Disagreement 5:4-7.)

II. Discussion

A. Defendants’ Interrogatories

Defendants propounded a set of twenty (20) interrogatories on Plaintiff. Interrogatory Nos.

1-18 ask Plaintiff to state the basis of various allegations made in Plaintiff’s second amended

complaint and request all the facts that support those allegations. For example, Interrogatory No.

1 asks:

If you contend, as alleged in paragraph 1 of your second amended

complaint that: “This actionable lawsuit is brought in ways to seek

relief to recover damages for civil violations, and to seek

injunctive[sic]”, please state the basis of said contentions and all facts

upon which you base said contentions. A full response to this

interrogatory requires that you state each fact supporting the

contention, the name, address and telephone number of each person

having knowledge of each fact and a full description of each writing

(as defined by Fed. R. Evid. 1001) evidencing, reflecting or referring

to each fact, including the name, address and custodian of each such

writing.

(Decl. of James E. Stone in Support of Mot. to Compel Proper Responses by Pl. to Defs.’ Discovery

Requests Ex. A, at 2, ECF No. 95.) Plaintiff’s response to all of Defendants’ interrogatories is a

single blanket objection. Plaintiff wrote “[r]esponse to Def’s special interrogatories set one is

objected to on the ground’s[sic] that it is vague ambiguous and overbroad.” (Decl. in Support of

Mot. to Compel Ex. D, at 5, ECF No. 95.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to respond to their

interrogatories separately and that the interrogatories cannot be vague, ambiguous, or overbroad

unless Plaintiff is admitting that the allegation taken directly from his own second amended

complaint was vague, ambiguous, or overbroad.

The Court will order Plaintiff to serve another response to Defendants’ interrogatories that

2

Case 1:06-cv-00665-LJO -SKO Document 102 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 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

responds to each interrogatory separately. Plaintiff may not set forth a single blanket objection to

Defendants’ interrogatories. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(4) requires that “[t]he grounds

for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.” Thus, Plaintiff must specifically

identify how each interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and/or overbroad.

As to the substance of Plaintiff’s objections, the Court notes that some of the interrogatories

are vague and ambiguous because the allegations Defendants recite from Plaintiff’s second amended

complaint are vague and ambiguous. For example, Plaintiff writes that “[t]his actionable lawsuit is

brought in ways to seek relief to recover damages for civil violations, and to seek injunctive[sic].” 

Plaintiff’s allegation is vague and ambiguous. Defendants understandably had difficulty

comprehending Plaintiff’s allegations and sought clarification through their interrogatory. 

Apparently, Plaintiff also finds his own allegation to be vague and ambiguous.

The Court recognizes that it is unduly burdensome to expect Defendants to defend against

Plaintiff’s allegations when even Plaintiff cannot make sense of them. Accordingly, the Court will

direct Plaintiff to provide more detailed responses to Defendants’ interrogatories. For each

interrogatoryPlaintiff must: (1) explain, in detail, how the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and/or

over broad; or (2) provide a separate, detailed response to the interrogatory. If Plaintiff objects to

an interrogatory that is based on a passage recited from Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff must either

explain the meaning of the passage or admit that the passage is incomprehensible. 

After reading the interrogatories, the Court is able to identify specific interrogatories that are

not vague, ambiguous, and/or overbroad. For example, Interrogatory No. 4 simply asks Plaintiff to

state the basis for Plaintiff’s contention that “privileges and visitation restrictions were imposed

against plaintiff’s[sic] as means to punish and out of retaliation by the defendants.” (Decl. in Supp.

of Mot. to Compel Ex. A, at 3, ECF No. 95.) Defendants are clearly and unambiguously asking

Plaintiff to provide all the facts in support of Plaintiff’s contention that he was punished or retaliated

against by Defendants. The Court also finds that Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7, 8, 12, 19 and 20 are not

vague, ambiguous, and/or overbroad. Plaintiff’s objections to these interrogatories will be overruled.

Plaintiff will be directed to provide a full response to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6-8, 12, 19 and 20.

The Court will order Plaintiff to serve Defendants with supplemental responses to

3

Case 1:06-cv-00665-LJO -SKO Document 102 Filed 07/16/10 Page 3 of 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

Defendants’ interrogatories within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. Defendants

will be given an opportunity to file a second motion to compel within fifteen (15) days after

Plaintiff’s supplemental responses.

The Court advises Plaintiff that his blanket objection is not a good faith response to each

interrogatory. Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to provide further responses to Defendants’

interrogatories and Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to provide good faith responses to

Defendants’ interrogatories may result in sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b),

including dismissal of this action. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v). Further,

Plaintiff is advised that if Defendants file a second motion to compel that is granted, the Court may

order Plaintiff to pay Defendants’ reasonable expenses incurred in preparing and filing the motion

to compel, including attorney’s fees. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A). Improper

responses to Defendants’ interrogatories may also result in an order prohibiting Plaintiff from

introducing the designated matters into evidence. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

37(b)(2)(A)(ii).

B. Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents

Defendants propounded a set of 19 document production requests on Plaintiff. The Court

notes that Defendants’ document production requests are styled in a fashion similar to Defendants’

interrogatories. Defendants quote an allegation from Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and ask

for any writings or recordings that support that allegation. Due to the fact that many of the

allegations quoted are vague and ambiguous, the associated document production requests are also

vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff objected to Request Nos. 1-4, 7-8, 10, 11, 13, 15-20 on the grounds 1

that they were “vague, ambiguous and overbroad.” (Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Compel Ex. D, at 2-5,

ECF No. 95.) Plaintiff provided responses to Request Nos. 5-6, and 9 and “objected” to requests 12

and 14 on the grounds that they had “already been answered” through Plaintiff’s responses to the

other requests. The Court will not address whether Plaintiff’s responses to requests 5-6, 9, 12, or

14 were sufficient as Defendants have not clearly identified how Plaintiff’s responses to these

There were only 19 requests. However, Plaintiff objected to a “Request No. 20” on the grounds that it was

1

vague, ambiguous and overbroad.

4

Case 1:06-cv-00665-LJO -SKO Document 102 Filed 07/16/10 Page 4 of 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

requests were inadequate.

With respect to Request Nos. 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, 13, and 15-19, the Court will order Plaintiff

to provide further responses to Defendants’ document production requests. For each document

production request Plaintiff must: (1) explain, in detail, how the request is vague, ambiguous, and/or

over broad; (2) produce documents responsive to the request; or (3) inform Plaintiff that he has no

documents in his possession, custody, or control that are responsive to the request. If Plaintiff

objects to a request that is based on a passage recited from Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff must either

explain the meaning of the passage or admit that the passage is incomprehensible.

The Court notes that some of the document production requests are not vague, ambiguous,

or overbroad. Request No. 19 asks for any writings or recordings that evidence any damages 2

incurred as result of Defendants’ alleged misconduct. There is nothing vague, ambiguous, or

overbroad about this request. Similarly, Request Nos. 4, 7, and 8 are not vague, ambiguous, and/or

overbroad. If Plaintiff has no documents in his possession, custody, or control that are responsive

to Defendants’ request, he must specifically state that he does not have possession, custody, or

control of the documents. Plaintiff’s objections to these requests will be overruled and Plaintiff will

be directed to provide further responses to these requests.

Plaintiff will be given thirty (30) days to supplement his responses to Defendants’ requests

for production of documents. Plaintiff is advised that, to the extent that Plaintiff does not have

possession, custody, or control of documents that are responsive to Defendants’ request, Plaintiff

must supplement his responses to explicitly inform Defendants that he does not have possession,

custody, or control of such documents. Plaintiff is also advised that if he continues to object to the

requests on the grounds that they are vague, ambiguous, or overbroad, he must explain how each

request is vague, ambiguous, or overbroad. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to produce

responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control may result in sanctions, such as

exclusion of the evidence, monetary sanctions, or dismissal. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

37(b)-(d). Plaintiff is also again advised that if Defendants file a second motion to compel that is

Request No. 19 is erroneously numbered as “Request No. 1” in Defendants’ requests for production of

2

documents.

5

Case 1:06-cv-00665-LJO -SKO Document 102 Filed 07/16/10 Page 5 of 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

granted, the Court may order Plaintiff to pay Defendants’ reasonable expenses incurred in preparing

and filing the motion to compel, including attorney’s fees. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

37(a)(5)(A).

C. Defendants’ Requests for Admission

Defendants propounded 19 requests for admission on Plaintiff. Defendants argue that

Plaintiff’s responses were improper because Plaintiff wrote “[r]esponse to Defendants[sic] request

for admission number’s[sic] 1-19, are hereby objected to on the ground’s[sic] that it is vague,

ambiguous and overbroad. Plaintiff will not admit that there is no evidence or facts to support the

allegation in the second amended complaint.” (Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Compel Ex. D, at 5, ECF

No. 95.)

Plaintiff will be ordered to provide further responses to Defendants’ requests for admission. 

Plaintiff is advised that he must respond to each request for admission separately. Further, Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4) states that:

If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or

state in detail why the answering partycannot truthfully admit or deny

it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and

when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only

a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and

qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of

knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny

only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the

information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it

to admit or deny.

Plaintiff’s blanket objection appears to deny Defendants’ requests for admission. Plaintiff

is instructed to separately deny each request for admission and specify the grounds for denial, as

required by Rule 36(a)(4). To the extent that Plaintiff objects to the request on the ground that it is

vague, ambiguous, or overbroad, Plaintiff must explain how the request is vague, ambiguous, or

overbroad. Plaintiff is advised that if Plaintiff fails to admit a request that Defendants later prove

to be true, Defendants may move for an order requiring Plaintiff to pay Defendants reasonable

expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in making that proof. See Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 37(c)(2).

Plaintiff will be ordered to provide supplemental responses to Defendants’ requests for

6

Case 1:06-cv-00665-LJO -SKO Document 102 Filed 07/16/10 Page 6 of 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

admission within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. Defendants will be given the

opportunity to file a second motion to compel within fifteen (15) days of the date of service of

Plaintiff’s supplemental responses.

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court will order Plaintiff to provide supplemental responses to Defendants’

interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission within thirty (30)

days of the date of service of this order. Plaintiff is advised that the continued failure to provide

proper responses to Defendants’ discovery requests may result in sanctions, such as the exclusion

of evidence, monetary sanctions, or dismissal of this action.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall provide further responses to Defendants’ interrogatories within thirty

(30) days of the date of service of this order:

a. Specifically, Plaintiff’s objections that Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6-8, 12, 19 and

20 are vague, ambiguous, and/or over broad are overruled. Plaintiff shall

provide detailed responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6-8, 12, 19 and 20; 

b. Plaintiff shall provide further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, 5, 9-11,

and 13-18 in accordance with this order;

2. Plaintiff shall provide further responses to Defendants’ Request for Production of

Documents within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order:

a. Specifically, Plaintiff’s objections that Request for Production of Document

Nos. 4, 7, 8, and 19 are vague, ambiguous, and/or over broad are overruled. 

Plaintiff shall produce documents that are responsive to these requests or

admit that he has no documents in his possession, custody or control that are

responsive to these requests; 

b. Plaintiff shall provide further responses to Request for Production of

Document Nos. 1-3, 10-11, 13 and 15-18 in accordance with this order;

3. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses to Defendants’ Requests for Admissions

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order; and

7

Case 1:06-cv-00665-LJO -SKO Document 102 Filed 07/16/10 Page 7 of 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

4. Defendant may file a second motion to compel within fifteen (15) days of the date

of service of Plaintiff’s supplemental responses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

Case 1:06-cv-00665-LJO -SKO Document 102 Filed 07/16/10 Page 8 of 8