Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380-46/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

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

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the complaint against 

Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza, Martinez and Masiel for use of excessive force 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendants Adams and Ruiz for failure to protect in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Martinez, David, Miranda and Garcia for 

assault and battery in violation of state law. 

On August 6, 2012, the Court re-opened discovery in this matter to allow Plaintiff to propound 

ten (10) interrogatories each to Defendants David, Miranda and Martinez. The Court directed 

Defendants to serve responses within forty-five days after service of Plaintiff’s request for 

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-001380-AWI-BAM PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO 

FILE REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO 

COURT’S REQUEST FOR STATUS OF 

DISCOVERY RESPONSES (ECF No. 168)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIE S 

PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANTS MARTINEZ, 

MIRANDA AND DAVID AND REQUEST FOR 

SANCTIONS AS MOOT (ECF No. 153)

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 172 Filed 05/13/13 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

interrogatories. The Court also indicated that, if necessary, Plaintiff could file a motion to compel 

responses. (ECF No. 145.)

On November 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel responses to interrogatories 

propounded on Defendants Martinez, Miranda and David. Plaintiff also requested sanctions. (ECF 

No. 153.) Defendants failed to file a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition. Accordingly, 

on November 26, 2012, the Court ordered Defendants to respond within twenty (20) days to the 

motion to compel. (ECF No. 158.)

On December 17, 2012, Defendants filed their opposition to the motion to compel, along with 

a request for additional time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendants explained that 

defense counsel received Plaintiff’s discovery requests on September 21, 2012. Counsel reportedly 

began drafting the responses, but lost the responses on two separate occasions due to problems with 

the Department of Justice computer system in Sacramento. Counsel reported working on the 

responses for a third time and requested an extension of time, to an including January 3, 2013, to serve 

responses. (ECF No. 162.)

On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 163.) Before the Court ruled on the 

motion to compel, Plaintiff filed a request to supplement his reply. (ECF No. 164.) On March 27, 

2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to supplement his reply. The Court also reviewed 

Plaintiff’s reply, which indicated that, as of January 16, 2013, he had not received Defendants’ 

responses to his interrogatories. Therefore, the Court ordered Defendants to notify the Court of the 

status of their discovery responses within seven days. (ECF No. 165.)

On April 2, 2013, Defendants filed a response to the Court’s order. Defense counsel asserted 

that a “computer tracking system” indicated that the interrogatories had been served on January 7, 

2013. Upon receiving the Court’s March 27, 2013 order seeking the status of discovery, defense 

counsel reviewed the case files, but could not find copies of the responses with original signatures or 

copies of the signed pages in the file. Defense counsel indicated that responses had been sent back to 

the Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison to have them re-signed. Defense counsel also 

argued that Plaintiff’s interrogatories sought information that had previously been provided to him. 

(ECF No. 167.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 172 Filed 05/13/13 Page 2 of 4
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

On April 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for leave to reply to Defendants’ response to the 

Court’s order. (ECF No. 168.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s request and finds that it provides 

pertinent information. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to file a reply is GRANTED. In his request, 

Plaintiff reported that despite defense counsel’s claim, he did not receive Defendants’ responses to his 

request for interrogatories in January 2013. Instead, he did not receive them until he received 

Defendants’ response to the Court’s request for the status of the responses on April 4, 2013. (ECF No. 

168.)

Based on defense counsel’s responses, it appears that attempts were made to complete the 

responses and serve them on Plaintiff. Although defense counsel’s lack of diligence and lack of 

attention to detail is troubling, there is no evidence conclusively demonstrating an intentional or 

purposeful delay in providing responses to Plaintiff. Nonetheless, defense counsel is admonished that 

further delays, missed deadlines or other dilatory conduct will not be countenanced in this action. 

Defense counsel is further advised that such conduct may warrant the imposition of sanctions, 

including both monetary and evidentiary sanctions. 

At this time, the Court finds that Plaintiff has received the discovery responses and his motion 

to compel is no longer necessary. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to 

interrogatories propounded to Defendants Martinez, Miranda and David and request for sanctions shall 

be denied as moot. However, if Plaintiff is dissatisfied with Defendants’ responses to interrogatories, 

he may file a subsequent motion to compel within thirty (30) days of this order. Defendants’ response, 

if any, will be due within fourteen (14) days after service of any motion to compel responses. No 

reply will be permitted.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks an order permitting an interlocutory appeal of this Court’s 

discovery orders, his request shall be denied. An interlocutory appeal of a non-final order may be 

certified if the district court determines that “such order involves a controlling question of law as to 

which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the 

order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 

“Section 1292(b) is a departure from the normal rule that only final judgments are appealable, and 

therefore must be construed narrowly.” James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1067 n. 6 (9th 

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 172 Filed 05/13/13 Page 3 of 4
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

Cir.2002). The purpose of the section is to “facilitate disposition of the action by getting a final 

decision on a controlling legal issue sooner, rather than later” in order to “save the courts and the 

litigants unnecessary trouble and expense.” United States v. Adam Bros. Farming, Inc., 369 F.Supp.2d 

1180, 1182 (C.D. Cal.2004) (citation omitted).

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there is a controlling question of law at stake resulting from 

the Court’s discovery orders or its decision not to sanction defendants. An interlocutory appeal of 

such orders will not facilitate disposition of the action or materially advance ultimate termination of 

this action. Instead, it will further delay resolution of this action and result in unnecessary trouble and 

expense. 

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s request to file a reply to Defendants’ response to Court’s request for status of 

discovery responses is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories propounded to Defendants 

Martinez, Miranda and David and request for sanctions is DENIED as moot; 

3. If Plaintiff is dissatisfied with responses to the interrogatories propounded to Defendants 

Martinez, Miranda and David, he may file a subsequent motion to compel within thirty (30) 

days of the date of this order. Defendants’ response, if any, will be due within fourteen 

(14) days after service of any motion to compel responses. No reply will be permitted; and

4. Plaintiff’s request to file an interlocutory appeal on the Court’s discovery orders is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

10c20kb8554

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 172 Filed 05/13/13 Page 4 of 4