Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01633/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01633-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

16CV1633-BAS-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORIANO MILLARE,

Plaintiff, 

v.

G. STRATTON, et al.,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 16CV1633-BAS-MDD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO COMPEL

[ECF No. 50]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a More Definite 

Answer. (ECF No. 50). Plaintiff’ moves to compel responses to 

interrogatories and further documents from Defendant G. Stratton. (Id.).

The dispute involves a confidential memorandum in Plaintiff’s central file 

and documents relating to Plaintiff’s work placement. (Id. at 14-27).

LEGAL STANDARD

A party may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged information 

that is relevant to any claim or defense in his case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Once the party seeking discovery has established that his request meets this 

broadly-construed relevancy requirement, “the party opposing discovery has 

the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 69 Filed 09/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16CV1633-BAS-MDD

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

burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. 

Ochoa, No. 07-cv-200, 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009). 

When a party believes the responses to his requests are incomplete, or 

contain unfounded objections, he may move the court for an order compelling 

disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 

DISCUSSION

As a threshold issue, in a proper motion seeking the court to compel 

further discovery production, the movant must show that he conferred, or 

made a good faith effort to confer, with the party opposing disclosure before 

seeking court intervention. Fed R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Additionally, a motion to 

compel “must include a certification” that the movant has attempted to meet 

and confer.” Id. Failure to meet and confer in good faith is grounds for 

denial of the motion to compel. Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 995 (8th 

Cir. 2006); Rogers v. Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. 469, 477 (S.D. Cal. 2012) 

(Scheinuck v. Sepulveda, No. C 09-0727 WHA (PR), 2010 WL 5174340, at *1-

2 (N.D. Cal. Dec, 15, 2010); see Shaw v. Cnty. Of San Diego, No. 06-2680-

IEG(PQR), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80508, at 3-4, 2008 WL 9411414 (S.D. Cal. 

Oct. 9, 2001) (denying plaintiff’s motion to compel for failing to attempt to 

meet and confer.). 

The requirement to meet and confer applies to pro se litigants. Madsen 

v. Risenhoover, No. C 09-5457 SBA (PR), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90810, *8-9 

(N.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (finding that the meet and confer requirement 

applies to incarcerated individuals); Walker v. Ryan, No. CV-1—1408-PHXJWS (LOA), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63606, at *5-6 (D. Ariz. May 7, 2012) 

(denying motion to compel where unrepresented party did not include a 

certification of attempts to meet and confer); see also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 

F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (discussing that although courts should liberally 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 69 Filed 09/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16CV1633-BAS-MDD

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

construe pro se plaintiffs’ pleadings and legal arguments, this liberality does 

not apply to compliance with straightforward procedural requirements).

Here, Defendants assert that Plaintiff did not meet and confer before 

filing his motion. (ECF No. 54 at 9). A declaration provided by Defendants’

attorney indicates that Plaintiff made no effort to meet and confer with 

respect to the supposedly insufficient discovery responses “either by letter, 

phone, or in person.” (ECF No. 54-2 at ¶7). Plaintiff’s motion cites Rule 37’s 

requirement to include a certification that he engaged in or attempted to 

engage in the meet and confer process before seeking court intervention. 

(ECF No. 50 at 12). Plaintiff’s motion does not contain the required 

certification. Further, Plaintiff argues that he does not have access to collect 

call telephones during business hours because of his work assignment. (ECF 

No. 62 at 1).

As noted above, Plaintiff’s status as an incarcerated pro se litigant does 

not absolve him of the requirement to engage in the meet and confer process.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied this requirement and 

therefore his Motion to Compel is premature. Accordingly, the parties are 

directed to meet and confer by telephone by October 4, 2017, to address 

Defendants’ objections and Plaintiff’s reasons to compel further production. 

Defendants are directed to initiate the call. If after a good faith effort to meet 

and confer, the parties are unable to resolve their disputes, they may file a 

joint motion for determination of a discovery dispute consistent with this 

Court’s Chambers Rules.

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If, after making a good faith effort to 

meet and confer regarding specific challenges Plaintiff asserts against 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 69 Filed 09/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16CV1633-BAS-MDD

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

Defendants’ objections, the parties reach an impasse, the parties may file a 

Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery dispute on or before October 

18, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 69 Filed 09/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4