Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01605/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01605-44/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW R. LOPEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1605 GEB DAD P

vs.

S. COOK, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his third amended complaint plaintiff claims that he was subjected to

retaliation at High Desert State Prison because of his jailhouse lawyering activities, that his

jailhouse lawyering activities were impeded, that he was improperly placed in the security

housing unit (SHU) and on contraband watch, and that he was denied access to the courts all in

violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint names seventeen

defendants and asserts fifteen causes of action. Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel

further responses to his requests for admissions and interrogatories. Below the court will

separately address each discovery request at issue.

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 15
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

2

I. Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions (First Set) to Defendants Bartos, McClure, McKean and

Vanderville

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling further responses only from defendants Bartos,

McClure and McKean.

A. Bartos

Request for Admission No. 19:

Admit that while he was housed in H.D.S.P.’s Ad-seg building in

the years 2000 through 2001 that plaintiff was known for filing

CDC 602's.

Response: 

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis it is vague

and ambiguous regarding to whom Lopez contends it was known

that he filed CDC 602's. Responding Party cannot provide a

meaningful response because of this vagueness and ambiguity.

Request for Admission No. 20:

Admit that while housed in H.D.S.P.’s Ad-seg in the year 2000 that

plaintiff was known to help other inmates with drafting CDC 602's.

Response:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis it is vague

and ambiguous regarding to whom Lopez contends it was known

that he helped other inmates with drafting CDC 602's. Responding

Party cannot provide a meaningful response because of this

vagueness and ambiguity.

(Mot. to Compel (MTC), Ex. A, at 5-6.) 

Plaintiff contends that defendant Bartos’ objections are meritless. Defendant

Bartos counters that his responses were appropriate, that he responded in subsequent

interrogatories that plaintiff’s litigation activities were not known to him, and that he had

insufficient information to admit or deny whether such activities were generally known.

The court finds that defendant Bartos has adequately responded to plaintiff’s

interrogatories. Therefore, no further response will be ordered. 

B. Defendant McClure

Request for Admission No. 1:

Admit that on March 16, 1999 you attended the classification

hearing of Inmate Robert Perry H-84922. (Held at H.D.S.P.)

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 15
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

 On March 20, 2007, plaintiff filed a request for leave to file a late reply along with his 1

reply brief. The request will be granted.

3

Response:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that is not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence and violates the privacy rights of third persons. Based on

these objections, Responding Party will not respond.

(Id., Ex. B at 2.) 

Plaintiff contends that this request “is a foundational question” and “supportive of

the sworn affidavit of Robert Perry[.]” (Id. at 2-3.) Defendant McClure argues that plaintiff has

not demonstrated how defendant McClure’s attendance at a classification hearing for another

inmate is relevant to his claims and that California Civil Code § 1798.24 prevents state agencies

from disclosing personal information about an individual without notice to the individual. In his

reply plaintiff indicates that inmate Perry’s declaration is attached as an exhibit to his 1

declaration in support of his motion for summary judgment, filed on April 18, 2007 (court

document # 122). 

Although the Perry declaration was not submitted to the court by plaintiff in

connection with this motion to compel, the court has nonetheless reviewed it and finds that the

declaration is vague as to the context and meaning of statements allegedly made by defendant

McClure. Therefore, the court will not order a further response from defendant McClure to this

discovery request. 

C. Defendant McKean

Request for Admission No. 5:

Admit that you have shot an inmate during your employment

within the CDC.

Response:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis it is not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence, and invades the privacy rights of third persons. Without

waiving these objections, Responding Party responds: Denied.

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 15
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

4

Request for Admission No. 6:

Admit that in December 1999 H.D.S.P.’s A-yard inmates were

being provided their personal property.

Response:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is

vague and ambiguous. Without waiving these objections,

Responding Party responds: Denied.

Request for Admission No. 7:

Admit that in December 1999 H.D.S.P.’s A-yard inmates were

being provided their privilege packages.

Response:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is

vague and ambiguous. Without waiving these objections,

Responding Party responds: Denied.

Request for Admission No. 8:

Admit that in December 1999 H.D.S.P. A-yard inmates were

provided controlled showers by group segments.

Response:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is

vague, and ambiguous. Without waiving these objections,

Responding Party responds: Denied.

Request for Admission No. 9:

Admit that inmate workers were allowed out of their cells to clean

and distribute laundry in H.D.S.P.’s A-4 building.

Response:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is

vague and ambiguous as to the time frame to which the request

pertains. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party

responds: Denied.

Request for Admission No. 10:

Admit that in December 1999 inmates were taken from their

H.D.S.P. A-yard housing units to the A-yard law library.

Response:

Denied.

Request for Admission No. 12:

Admit that in July 1999 an inmate was killed on A-yard at

H.D.S.P.

Response:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 4 of 15
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

5

evidence, and invades the privacy rights to third persons. Without

waiving these objections, Responding Party responds: Denied.

(MTC, Ex. C at 2-4.) 

Plaintiff argues that defendant McKean’s responses are false and that the

objections are “baseless” and requests that he be ordered to produce the specified documents. 

(Id. at 4-5.) 

The court does not find defendant McKean’s answers evasive or incomplete in

any way. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). While plaintiff may not agree with those responses to his

requests for admissions, that does not provide any support for his motion to compel. The court

will not order further responses or production of documents by defendant McKean as to this

discovery request.

II. Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions (Set One) to Defendants Cook, Harrison, Holmes,

Martinez, Shaver, Adams, Garate, Johnson, Nergenah, Statti and Morton

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling further responses only from defendants Cook,

Garate, Harrison, Johnson, and Morton.

A. Defendant Cook

Plaintiff states that he submitted thirty-six requests for admissions (MTC, Ex. E)

but that defendant Cook responded to only twelve and mistakenly responded to requests for

admission numbered thirteen and fourteen that were directed to defendant Vanderville. (MTC at

7.) In response, defendant Cook agrees that “[d]ue to an oversight,” he initially only responded

to the first fourteen requests but contends that on December 28, 2006, he sent supplemental

responses to the remainder of plaintiff’s requests. (Opp’n at 7.) Plaintiff does not dispute

defendant Cook’s representation in his reply. Therefore, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion to

compel further responses by defendant Cook in addition to the supplemental responses already

provided. 

///// 

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 5 of 15
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

6

B. Defendants Garate, Harrison, Johnson, and Morton

In his motion plaintiff contended that these defendants have failed to respond to

requests for admissions that were served in July of 2006. Defendants respond by stating that

their responses to plaintiff’s requests for admissions have in fact been served on plaintiff on the

following dates: defendant Garate’s responses on November 6, 2006; defendant Harrison’s

responses on February 1, 2007; defendant Johnson’s responses on December 29, 2006; and

defendant Morton’s responses on December 15, 2006. Plaintiff does not dispute these

representations in his reply. Therefore, the court will not order further responses in addition to

those noted above.

III. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (First Set)

Interrogatory No. 1:

State the address of the pension holder of CDC employees.

Response:

Defendants object to this request on the basis that it is vague,

ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence. Based on these objections, Defendants

will not respond to this interrogatory.

(MTC, Ex. M at 2.) 

In opposition to this motion to compel defendants argue that the term “pension

holder” is not defined and it is not clear from what entity plaintiff seeks an addresses. (Opp’n at

8.) Defendants also argue that the “pension holder” is not a party to this action and its address is

not relevant to any issue in dispute. (Id.) Nevertheless, defendant asserts that plaintiff has been

provided a list of contact offices for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. The

court agrees that plaintiff has failed to show how any additional information he seeks in this

regard could be relevant to this action. Accordingly, the court will not order further response to

this interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 2:

State the address of any union that defendants, or some, or any, of

them are members.

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 6 of 15
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

7

Response:

Defendants object to this request on the basis that it is vague,

ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence. Based on these objections, Defendants

will not respond to this interrogatory.

(MTC, Ex. M at 2.) 

In their opposition defendants refer to plaintiff’s “meet and confer” letter, dated

August 13, 2006, in which plaintiff explains that the union information he seeks “is anticipated to

reveal that complaints of misconduct, and those displaying unethical and immoral character,

similar to that involved in this case was committed by defendants, or some of them.” (MTC, Ex.

D at 2.) Defendants argue that plaintiff apparently seeks character evidence and to discover other

instances of misconduct on the part of the defendants and that Federal Rule of Evidence 404

expressly makes such evidence inadmissible except in limited circumstances which plaintiff has

not demonstrated exist in this case. 

On its face the interrogatory seeks seemingly irrelevant information regarding

unions the defendants may belong to and for that reason alone the motion to compel will be

denied. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff is attempting to discover prior acts of misconduct by the

defendants, the court finds that plaintiff has made no showing in support of the request. 

Therefore, the court will not order further response to this interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 3:

Provide the contact title and address of any person having contact

information of retired prison employees.

Response:

Defendants object to this request on the basis that it is not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Based on these objections, Defendants will not respond

to this interrogatory.

(Id.) 

As to this request, defendants argue that the motion to compel should be denied

because plaintiff has failed to explain how the information he seeks is relevant to any claim or

potential defense in this action. The court agrees. No further response will be ordered.

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 7 of 15
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

8

Interrogatory No. 4:

State co-defendant Bruce Farris’s contact information. 

Alternatively, should you believe any privacy concerns attach,

provide your response to the court in this action, and cite any

priveleges [sic] relied upon. If any relevant documents exist,

produce those documents.

Interrogatory No. 5:

State co-defendant Troy Singletary’s contact information. 

Alternatively, should you believe any privileges attach, provide

your response to the court in this action, and cite any privileges

[sic] relied upon. If any relevant documents exist, produce those

documents.

(Id., Ex. M at 2-3.) In response to both interrogatories, defendants stated: 

Response:

Defendants object to this request on the basis that it calls for

confidential information protected by privacy rights of staff and

inmates guaranteed by the United Stated, and California

Constitutions, applicable statutes such as Penal Code section

832.7, Government Code section 6254, and Evidence Code section

1043; and calls for confidential information that would jeopardize

the safety, and security of the institution. See Title 15 California

Code of Regulations § 3321. Also, the interrogatory is not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants respond

that none of them know Bruce Farris’[or Troy Singletary’s] current

contact information.

(Id., Ex. M at 3-4.) 

In responding to the motion to compel, defendants again represent that they do not

possess current contact information for Bruce Farris or Troy Singletary. Both of those

defendants were dismissed from this action on March 14, 2007, following the U.S. Marshal’s

failed efforts to serve process on them. Again, while plaintiff may not be satisfied with

defendants’ response in this regard, that dissatisfaction alone does not provide a basis for a

motion to compel. Accordingly, the court will not order further responses to these interrogatories

in light of defendants’ representations that they do not know the current addresses of the two

individuals.

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 8 of 15
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

9

IV. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Set Two)

A. Requests No. 1 through 13:

In these thirteen requests, plaintiff asks that defendants “[s]tate the duties” of

defendants Adams, Babich, Bartos, Garate, Harrison, Holmes, Johnson, McClure, McKean,

Nergenah, and Vanderville, and “[i]f those duties are set forth in any job description or other

document, produce the document.” (MTC at 14; Ex. N at 2-4.) Defendants acknowledge that

some of the job descriptions produced pursuant to these requests had pages missing and they 

agree to provide plaintiff with the missing pages. Defendants also agree to provide supplemental

responses to interrogatories 4, 7, 10, 12, and 13 to include information about the specific

positions referred to in those requests. (Opp’n at 10.) Supplemented as proposed by defendants,

the responses appear to be adequate. Therefore, the court will order defendants to supplement

their responses and produce the missing job description pages as offered. 

B. Requests No. 14 and 15:

Interrogatory/Request for Production No. 14:

State the procedures in effect during December 1999 at H.D.S.P.

A-facility for processing CDC 115's charging inmates with rules

violations. If those procedures are set forth in any policy, directive,

or other documents, produce those documents.

Interrogatory/Request for Production No. 15:

State the procedure in effect during [D]ecember 1999 at H.D.S.P.’s

A-facility for distributing property to inmates on A-facility,

including personal property, quarterly packages and special

purchases. If those procedures are set forth in any policy, directive,

or other documents, produce those documents.

(MTC, Ex. N at 5.) In response to these interrogatories/requests, defendants attached copies of

the California Code of Regulations regarding inmate discipline. 

In their opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants agree “to

supplement their responses to indicate whether there are policies and procedures particular to

High Desert State Prison.” (Opp’n at 10.) Supplemented as proposed by defendants, the 

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 9 of 15
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

10

responses appear to be adequate. Therefore, the court will order defendants to supplement their

responses as offered.

C. Requests No. 16, 17, and 18:

Interrogatory/Request for Production No. 16:

State the Due Process Hearing procedures afforded inmates facing

disciplinary charges on H.D.S.P.’s A-facility during December

1999 through January 2000. If these procedures are set forth in any

policy, directive, or other document, produce those documents.

Response:

Defendants object to this request on the basis that it is overly

burdensome, as the requested documents are available for

inspection and copying under institutional policies and procedures

via the law library. Without waiving these objections, please see

CCR § 3310-3326, and DOM § 52080.1-52080.35.

Interrogatory/Request for Production No. 17:

State the Due Process Procedures entitled inmates facing validation

(gang) in H.D.S.P.’s Administrative Segregation units in the year

2000. If these procedures are set forth in any policy, directive, or

other documents, produce those documents.

Response:

Defendants object to this request on the basis that it is overly

burdensome, as the requested documents are available for

inspection and copying under institutional policies and procedures

via the law library. Defendants do not have possession of the

requested documents. Without waiving these objections, please

see CCR §§ 3023, 3164, 3335-3345, and DOM §§ 52080.24,

11010.16.4.1.1.

Interrogatory/Request for Production No. 18:

State the procedures in effect during September 2000 at H.D.S.P.

for placing inmates on contraband watch. If those procedures are

set forth in any policy, directive, or other document, produce those

documents.

Response:

Defendants object on the grounds that the request is unduly

burdensome. Without waiving these objections, copies of the

Department Operations Manual and the California Code of

Regulations are available for inspection and copying under

institutional policies and guidelines via the law library.

(MTC, Ex. N at 5-6.)

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 10 of 15
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

11

Plaintiff argues that copies of the DOM and California Code of Regulations are

not in the law library at CSP-Corcoran where he is now incarcerated. In their opposition to the

motion to compel, defendants agree to provide plaintiff with the pertinent sections of the DOM

and Code of Regulations. (Opp’n at 10.) To the extent that plaintiff contends that defendants’

responses are otherwise incomplete, plaintiff has not provided any support for this contention and

the court finds the responses otherwise adequate. Therefore, the court will not order further

responses or production of documents other than to order defendants to produce to plaintiff the

pertinent sections of the DOM and Code of Regulations as they have offered to do.

D. Requests No. 19, 20 and 21:

Interrogatory/Request for Production No. 19:

State the names, Titles, and duties of all staff members at H.D.S.P.

who had the responsibility in 1999 through 2001 for responding to,

investigating or deciding inmate grievances. If those duties are set

forth in any job description, policy, directive, or other document,

produce those documents.

Response:

Defendants object to this request on the basis that it is vague,

ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence. Based on these objections, Defendants

will not respond.

Interrogatory/Request for Production No. 20:

State the procedure in effect between March 1999 through

February 2001 at H.D.S.P. for responding to, investigating and

deciding inmate grievances. If the procedure for handling

grievances of staff complaints (CDC 1858) is different from the

procedure for handling regular CDC 602's, state both procedures. 

If those procedures are set forth in any directive, manual or other

document, produce those documents.

Response:

Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague,

ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, compound and

violates the privacy rights of correctional staff. Based on these

objections, Defendants will not respond.

Interrogatory/Request for Production No. 21:

State the names, titles, and duties of all staff members at H.D.S.P.

who had the responsibility in the year 2000 for providing copies of

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 11 of 15
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

 California Code of Regulations, tit. 15, section 3338(i) provides: 2

The determinations arrived at in the classification hearing will be

documented in the hearing portion of the segregation order, CDC

Form 114-D, and in the classification committee report, CDC Form

128-G, depending upon the hearing at which the need for

segregated housing is resolved. Such documentation will include

an explanation of the reason and the information and evidence

relied upon for the action taken. A copy of the completed CDC

Form 114-D and any CDC Form 128-G resulting from hearings

will be routed to the inmate’s central file. The inmate will also be

given copies of all completed forms and of all other documents

relied upon in the hearing except those containing confidential

information.

12

documents as required by Title 15 CCR. Section 3338 sub. sec. i2

to plaintiff.

Response:

Defendants object to this request on the basis that it is overly

burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection,

Defendants respond that records of this information are retained

only for three years.

(MTC, Ex. N at 7-8.) 

Plaintiff argues that the evidence he seeks through these discovery requests will

show that the applicable prison procedures are regularly ignored and that defendants conspired to

deprive him of his due process rights when plaintiff was retained in segregation under false

pretenses. (Id. at 22.) Defendants counter that the names and duties of staff members who are

responsible for processing inmate grievances are not relevant for plaintiff’s conspiracy claim. 

Nevertheless, defendants have agreed to provide the information sought by request number 20. 

Supplemented as proposed by defendants, the responses appear to be adequate. The court finds

that request number 19 is overly broad and not likely to result in the discovery of relevant

evidence. Therefore, the court will not order further responses or production for requests number

19 but will order a further response to request number 20 as offered by defendants.

As to his request number 21, plaintiff argues that defendant Vanderville signed a

form indicating that plaintiff was not provided copies of documents as required by 15 CCR §

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 12 of 15
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

13

3338(i) and that the information he now seeks pursuant to this request is relevant to his

conspiracy claim. Defendants respond by now representing that they are not in possession of any

information or document responsive to this request. Based on defendants’ representation that no

responsive information or documents exist and in light of plaintiff’s failure to make any showing 

to the contrary, no further response to this discovery request will be required.

V. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Set Three)

In response to the motion to compel, defendants have acknowledged that they

inadvertently failed to respond to plaintiff’s interrogatories 1 to 11, 18, 19, 24, and 27. In their

opposition filed February 20, 2007, defendants agreed to provide supplemental responses to

those interrogatories within thirty days. At the same time defendants agreed to supplement their

responses to plaintiff’s requests numbered 13, 14, 16, and 17, and to provide a page missing from 

the document previously produced in response to request number 12. 

The thirty day period has long since passed and plaintiff has not notified the court

that defendants have failed to provide the supplemental responses as promised. The court will

assume that the supplemental response has been delivered and that it is sufficient. Accordingly,

the court will not order any additional response to the requests beyond the promised

supplemental responses.

Interrogatory No. 20:

State the location of any and all log books or sign-in sheets

required to be completed by prison staff prior to accessing

administrative segregation inmate property in the year 2000 at

H.D.S.P.

Response:

Defendants respond that the requested documents do not exist, as

they are retained for three years under the CDCR’s records retention policy.

(MTC, Ex. O, at 3-4.) 

Plaintiff contends that in a unrelated case, he obtained “similar log book requests

dating back to 1999" and that this causes him to believe that defendants are being “untruthful and

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 13 of 15
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

 Defendants have also indicated, however, that they do not have contact information for 3

Singletary and Farris. 

14

evasive” in their response to this discovery request. (Id. at 25.) Defendants counter that plaintiff

does not claim that any of the defendants were responsible for maintaining the log books in

question. Defendants also argue that plaintiff has provided no explanation of how the answer to

this interrogatory is relevant to the pending action. 

Plaintiff has not made any showing that the information he seeks by way of this

interrogatory is relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence nor is any such 

relevance apparent on the face of the request. The motion to compel will be denied as to this

interrogatory.

Finally, plaintiff’s interrogatories numbered 22, 25 and 26 seek the current

addresses and telephone number of defendants Hansen, Singletary and Farris. In their opposition

brief defendants withdrew their objection and agree to provide responses to these interrogatories

for Singletary, Farris and Hansen. The court will order that they do so. 3

VI. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 15, 2006 motion to compel is granted in part and denied

in part as indicated above;

2. Within thirty days of the service of this order, defendants shall provide the

supplemental responses and documents specified above and in their opposition to plaintiff’s

motion to compel, unless they have already done so; and

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 14 of 15
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

15

3. Plaintiff’s March 20, 2007 request to file a late reply to defendants’ opposition

to plaintiff’s motion to compel, is granted. 

DATED: September 27, 2007.

DAD:4

lope1605.mtc

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 156 Filed 09/28/07 Page 15 of 15