Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03409/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03409-7/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 

KENNETH HILL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-3409-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed a motion to compel, which plaintiff has 

not opposed. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to compel, which defendants do oppose. As stated 

below, defendants’ motion is granted and plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

I. Defendants’ Motion to Compel 

Defendants move to compel further responses to their special interrogatories and requests 

for production. As for the interrogatories, defendants first argue that plaintiff should be ordered 

to serve a verification of his responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(b)(3) (“Each interrogatory 

must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing and under 

oath.”). Plaintiff signed his interrogatory responses but failed to verify that they were made under 

oath. See ECF No. 26, Marquez Decl., Exs. E, F, G. Accordingly, plaintiff must serve on 

defendants a signed verification that his interrogatory responses, dated April 23, 2013, were made 

under oath. 

Case 2:11-cv-03409-JAM-EFB Document 34 Filed 10/11/13 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

Defendants next argue that plaintiff’s response of “See Special Interrogatory 1-6 Medical 

records complaint” to special interrogatories nos. 7 and 8 is deficient. In special interrogatory no. 

7, each defendant asked plaintiff to identify all documents that support his contention that the 

defendant violated plaintiff’s civil or constitutional rights. In special interrogatory no. 8, each 

defendant asked plaintiff to identify all documents that support his contention that he suffered 

injury or harm as result of the purported acts or omissions of that defendant. Aside from the fact 

that plaintiff’s responses are not complete in themselves and are thus improper because they refer 

to prior responses, they are also deficient because it is not clear which documents plaintiff refers 

to when he states “Medical records complaint.” Accordingly, plaintiff’s responses to special 

interrogatory nos. 7 and 8 are evasive or incomplete and an order compelling further responses is 

appropriate under Rules 37(a)(3)(B)(iii) and (a)(4).1

Defendants also move to compel written responses to their requests for production. They 

state that plaintiff provided documents in response, but did not provide written responses to their 

requests. With respect to each document request, plaintiff must respond by restating the request 

and providing a separate and complete written response to it. See Burlington Northern & Santa 

Fe Ry. v. United States Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir.. 2005) (“Rule 34 requires that a 

written response to a discovery request be served within 30 days of the service of the request.”). 

Defendants’ motion to compel written responses to their document requests must also be granted. 

In his responses to each document request, plaintiff must either identify the documents that he has 

produced, or explain why he has not produced any. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 

In plaintiff’s August 12, 2013 motion to compel, he states that defendants have failed to 

respond to his requests for production. ECF No. 27. Defense counsel responded through a 

declaration, stating that she served responses to plaintiff’s request for production on May 24, 

2013, and that she supplemented those responses with copies of medical records, served on 

August 15, 2013. ECF No. 28 ¶¶ 4, 5. Defense counsel states that she is not aware of any 

 

1

 Plaintiff must respond to the requests by listing specific, identifiable documents. 

Case 2:11-cv-03409-JAM-EFB Document 34 Filed 10/11/13 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

outstanding discovery requests. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff did not file a reply. In light of defense 

counsel’s representations, particularly the fact that she supplemented her response to plaintiff’s 

document requests after plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel, it appears as though 

plaintiff’s motion is now moot. 

III. Order 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 27) 

is denied, and defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 26) is granted. Within 21 days from the 

date of this order, plaintiff shall (1) serve defendants with a signed verification that his 

interrogatory responses, dated April 23, 2013, were made under oath; (2) serve defendants with 

further responses to Special Interrogatories, Nos. 7 and 8; and (3) serve signed written responses 

to defendants’ Request for Production of Documents. 

Dated: October 10, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-03409-JAM-EFB Document 34 Filed 10/11/13 Page 3 of 3