Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01019/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01019-5/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

07cv1019

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY WAYNE JONES, 

CDCR #D-55894,

Plaintiff,

v.

STUART J. RYAN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-CV-1019-JMA

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR AN ORDER

COMPELLING DEFENDANTS TO

COOPERATE IN DISCOVERY [Doc.

140];

ORDER SETTING FORTH REMAINING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On July 28, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff Rodney Wayne Jones’s (“Plaintiff”)

ex parte request for permission to file a late motion for an order compelling Defendants

to cooperate in discovery, and deemed Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed as of that date. 

Doc. 141. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)

Defendants (i.e., all defendants except Ronald Pegues (“Pegues”), who is represented

by separate counsel) filed an opposition to the motion to compel on August 10, 2010. 

Doc. 143. Defendant Pegues did not file an opposition.

The Court finds this matter suitable for submission without oral argument

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1 d.1., and accordingly DENIES Plaintiff’s request for oral

argument. Further, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is

Case 3:07-cv-01019-JMA-NLS Document 146 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 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

2 07cv1019

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth in further detail below.

A. Discovery Propounded Upon Defendant Pegues

Plaintiff states that Defendant Pegues has refused to respond to any discovery. 

See Pl.’s Mem. at 2-3, 5. According to the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s motion,

Plaintiff served interrogatories upon Pegues on August 24, 2009, requests for admission

on January 7, 2010, and requests for production of documents on January 31, 2010. 

See Pl. Decl., Exs. A, F, & I. Pegues does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of discovery from Defendant Pegues is

GRANTED. Defendant Pegues shall serve his overdue responses, without objection,

to each of the sets of discovery referred to above by no later than August 27, 2010. At

the time he serves his responses, Pegues shall file a notice with the Court indicating

compliance with this Order. Copies of the proofs of service of the discovery responses

shall accompany the filed notice.

B. Discovery Propounded Upon CDCR Defendants

1. Discovery Served After February 3, 2010

The discovery cutoff in this matter was March 5, 2010. The Court issued no less

than three orders advising Plaintiff of this deadline. See Docs. 109, 124, 128. In its

April 22, 2010 Order, the Court ruled:

Plaintiff’s request to file discovery motions in relation to discovery served

on August 24, 2009, January 7, 2010, January 31, 2010, February 4,

2010, and February 10, 2010 is granted in part and denied in part. In

view of the Court’s previously-established deadline of March 5, 2010 for

the completion of all discovery (see Docs. 109, 124, 128), any discovery

served after February 3, 2010 is untimely pursuant to the Court’s previous

scheduling orders, which required that “all discovery under Rules 30

through 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be initiated a

sufficient period of time in advance of the cutoff date, so that it may be

completed by the cutoff date, taking into account the times for service,

notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 

See Docs. 109, 128. Therefore, the defendants need not respond to any

discovery served by Plaintiff after February 3, 2010, and Plaintiff shall not

file any discovery motions in relation to such discovery.

Apr. 22, 2010 Order [Doc. 135], ¶ 2. Therefore, in accordance with the Court’s previous

order, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the following discovery is DENIED as

Case 3:07-cv-01019-JMA-NLS Document 146 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 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

1 Plaintiff should note that the CDCR Defendants’ March 23, 2010 request for

supplemental discovery responses from him (see Pl. Decl., Ex. R) does not support his

argument that Defendants “did not actually believe that serving discovery responses beyond

the March 5, 2010 discovery cutoff date [was a justifiable ground] to deny Plaintiff” responses

to his document requests and interrogatories. Pl.’s Mem. at 6. Defendants’ request for

supplemental responses from Plaintiff pertained to discovery that had been initiated a sufficient

period of time in advance of the discovery cutoff date, unlike the discovery served by Plaintiff

on February 4, 2010 and February 10, 2010.

3 07cv1019

the discovery was untimely served: Requests for production of documents propounded

upon Ochoa, Sandoval, Schommer, Zills, Wells, Mejia, Rodiles, Ortiz, Flores, Rangel,

Martinez, Valenzuela (see Pl. Decl., Exs. K, L [served on February 4 and February 10,

2010]) and interrogatories propounded upon Castaneda, Sandoval, Schommer, Wells,

Zills, Rodiles, Ortiz, and Mejia (see id., Ex. M [served on February 10, 2010]).1

2. Other Discovery Served on the CDCR Defendants

Plaintiff appears to contend that the CDCR Defendants provided “incomplete,

evasive and inadequate” responses to the following discovery: (1) Interrogatory nos. 7,

8, 13, 15, 19, 20, 23, and 25 served upon Jimenez; (2) Requests for admission nos. 9,

14, and 16 served upon Ochoa; (3) Request for admission no. 14 served upon Mejia;

and (4) Document requests served upon Stratton. See Pl.’s Mem. at 3; Pl. Decl., ¶¶ 5,

8, 14, 15 & Exs. G, N, O. 

Plaintiff does not provide any argument specifying the reasons the responses

provided by Defendants to this discovery is inadequate, and thus has utterly failed to

support his contentions. Plaintiff cannot expect to simply file copies of the discovery

served and expect the Court to sift through it, find the alleged deficiencies, and make

Plaintiff’s arguments for him. It is incumbent upon Plaintiff to provide the basis for his

arguments. “It is not the job of this court to develop arguments for [the parties].” See,

e.g., Fabriko Acquisition Corp. v. Prokos, 536 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff’s

motion to compel further responses to this discovery is accordingly DENIED.

C. Motion for Summary Judgment

On July 28, 2010, the Court, in view of the pendency of the instant motion to

compel, vacated the August 20, 2010 hearing date and briefing schedule on the CDCR

Case 3:07-cv-01019-JMA-NLS Document 146 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 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

4 07cv1019

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Defendant Pegues’s joinder thereto, to

be reset at a later date. Notwithstanding the Court’s order, Plaintiff filed an opposition to

the motion for summary judgment on August 11, 2010. Doc. 144.

If, after receiving Defendant Pegues’s discovery responses, Plaintiff wishes to

supplement his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, he shall do so by no

later than September 24, 2010. Any reply to Plaintiff’s opposition and/or supplemental

opposition shall be filed by no later than October 8, 2010. As of October 8, 2010, the

Court will, in its discretion, consider the motion for summary judgment as submitted on

the papers, and will issue its written opinion thereafter. See Civil Local Rules 7.1 d.1. 

Unless otherwise ordered, no oral argument will be heard.

D. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Defendant Pegues shall serve his overdue responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories,

requests for admission, and requests for production of documents, without objection,

by no later than August 27, 2010. No further discovery responses are required from the

CDCR Defendants.

If Plaintiff wishes to supplement his opposition to Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment after receiving Pegues’s discovery responses, he shall do so by no

later than September 24, 2010. Any reply to Plaintiff’s opposition and/or supplemental

opposition shall be filed by no later than October 8, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 13, 2010

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01019-JMA-NLS Document 146 Filed 08/13/10 Page 4 of 4