Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01503/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01503-9/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD TATE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01503 AWI-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

[ECF No. 59]

Plaintiff Rodney Brooks (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against 

Defendant Harold Tate for claims of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On October 1, 2012, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order in this action. ECF 

No. 22. The discovery cut-off date was set for June 1, 2013. The parties were informed that “[t]o 

ensure that the responding party has forty-five (45) days after the request is first served to respond, 

discovery requests must be served at least forty-five (45) days before the discovery deadline.” ECF 

No. 22. 

On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel responses to Plaintiff’s request for 

production of documents. Defendant filed an opposition on March 22, 2013, and Plaintiff filed a 

reply on April 8, 2013. On May 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to extend the 

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 74 Filed 09/10/14 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

Discovery and Scheduling Order. Defendant did not oppose the motion. On August 7, 2013, the 

Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Also on August 7, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s 

motion for extension of time to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order. The Court noted that 

the discovery motions were pending at the time of the discovery cut-off. Therefore, the Court 

extended the discovery deadline to allow for completion of discovery. The new discovery cut-off 

deadline was set for October 1, 2013.

On September 8, 2013, Plaintiff served a Request for Admissions on Defendant. ECF No. 

59. On September 18, 2013, Defendant responded that he had received the Request for Admissions; 

however, Defendant refused to provide responses stating the request was untimely. On October 27, 

2013, Plaintiff served a Motion to Compel on Defendant. Defendant opposed the Motion to Compel 

on November 12, 2013. Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition on December 13, 2013.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the 

claim or defense of any party . . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the 

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Defendants are required to “furnish such information as is available” to him in 

responding to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, and documents which are in his “possession, custody or 

control” in responding to Plaintiff’s request for the production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a), 

34(a). If Defendant objects to one of Plaintiff’s discovery requests, it is Plaintiff’s burden to 

demonstrate why the objection is not justified. Plaintiff must inform the court which discovery 

requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the Court 

why the information sought is relevant and why Defendant’s objections are not justified. 

Here, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s 

Request for Admissions. Defendant is correct that Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions was untimely. 

The discovery cut-off was moved to October 1, 2013, in light of the outstanding discovery motions 

at that time. Pursuant to the Discovery and Scheduling Order of October 1, 2012, Plaintiff therefore 

had to serve his discovery request forty-five days prior to October 1, 2013, to wit, August 19, 2013. 

Plaintiff inexplicably did not serve his Request for Admissions until September 8, 2013. Then, when 

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 74 Filed 09/10/14 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

Defendant refused and notified Plaintiff of his refusal on September 18, 2013, Plaintiff inexplicably 

delayed serving the instant Motion to Compel until October 27, 2013, which was nearly one month 

beyond the discovery cut-off date. Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions and Motion to Compel are 

untimely.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 74 Filed 09/10/14 Page 3 of 3