Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01462/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01462-20/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

DEVONTE HARRIS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

HUMBERTO GERMAN, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-01462-DAD-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 75.)

I. BACKGROUND

Devonte Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with the First 

Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on March 14, 2016, against defendants Correctional 

Officer (C/O) Humberto German, C/O Philip Holguin, and C/O R. Burnitzki (collectively, 

“Defendants”), for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and, against 

defendant C/O Philip Holguin for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 8.)

On March 19, 2018, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order setting out pretrial 

deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of August 19, 2018, for completion of discovery. 

(ECF No. 37.) In the court’s order, the parties were advised that “[a]ll discovery requests must 

be served at least 60 days before the discovery deadline.” (Id. at 2:6.) (emphasis added)

Case 1:15-cv-01462-ADA-GSA Document 89 Filed 02/05/20 Page 1 of 8
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

On August 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of the deadlines in the 

Discovery and Scheduling Order, (ECF No. 40), and on September 21, 2018, the court granted 

the motion and re-opened discovery setting new deadlines including a discovery deadline of 

November 30, 2018, (ECF No. 4.). The parties were advised that “[a]ll other provisions of the 

court’s March 19, 2018 Discovery and Scheduling Order remain the same.” (Id. at 3 ¶ 4.) 

On April 25, 2019, the court reopened discovery again and set new deadlines, including 

a discovery deadline of August 30, 2019. (ECF No. 65.) The parties were again advised that 

“[a]ll other provisions of the court’s March 19, 2018 Discovery and Scheduling Order remain the 

same.” (Id. at 2 ¶ 4.)

On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of the discovery deadline. 

(ECF No. 72.) On October 15, 2019, the court extended the discovery deadline to December 18, 

2019, but only for the limited purpose of Plaintiff arranging and conducting depositions. (ECF 

No. 80.)

On September 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories. 

(ECF No. 75.) On October 10, 2019, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 

79.) Plaintiff has not filed a reply to the opposition, and the time for filing such reply has expired. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is now before the court. Local Rule 230(l).

II. MOTION TO COMPEL

Legal Standards -- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b), 33(a), 36, and 37(a)

Under Rule 26(b), “[U]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is 

as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to 

any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance 

of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to 

relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 

issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be 

discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

///

Case 1:15-cv-01462-ADA-GSA Document 89 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 8
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

Under Rule 33(a), “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into 

under Rule 26(b), and [a]n interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion 

or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2) 

(quotation marks omitted). Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be 

answered separately and fully in writing under oath, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and the grounds for 

objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Davis v. 

Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981). Any ground not stated in a timely objection is 

waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(c). The 

responding party shall use common sense and reason. E.g., Collins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 

06-2466-CM-DJW, 2008 WL 924935, *8 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2008). A party answering 

interrogatories cannot limit his answers to matters within his own knowledge and ignore 

information immediately available to him or under his control. Essex Builders Group, Inc. v. 

Amerisure Insurance Co., 230 F.R.D. 682, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2005). A responding party is not 

generally required to conduct extensive research in order to answer an interrogatory, but a 

reasonable effort to respond must be made. Gorrell v. Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 629, 629 (E.D. Cal. 

Apr. 5, 2013); L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, No. S-06-2042 LKK GGH, 2007 WL 2781132, *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Sept. 21, 2007). If a party cannot furnish details, he should say so under oath and say why 

and set forth the efforts used to obtain the information and cannot plead ignorance to information 

that is from sources within his control. Milner v. National School of Health Technology, 73 

F.R.D. 628, 632 (E.D. Pa. 1977). “However, where the answer states that no record exists, the 

court cannot compel the impossible.” Id. at 633 (citing Moss v. Lane Co., 50 F.R.D. 122, 128 

(W.D. Va. 1970), aff’d in part, remanded in part, 471 F.2d 853 (4th Cir. 1973)). A sworn answer 

indicating a lack of knowledge and no means of obtaining knowledge is not objectionable. 

Milner, 73 F.R.D. at 633 (citing Brennan v. Glenn Falls Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 19 F.R.Serv.2d 

721, 722-23 (N.D.N.Y. 1974)). The responding party has a duty to supplement any responses if

///

Case 1:15-cv-01462-ADA-GSA Document 89 Filed 02/05/20 Page 3 of 8
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

the information sought is later obtained or the response provided needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(e)(1)(A).

Rule 36 provides for requests for admissions as follows: “A party may serve on any other 

party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters 

within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to facts, the application of law to fact, or the opinions 

about either; and the genuineness of any described documents. Each matter must be separately 

stated. [¶] A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the 

request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the 

matter and signed by the party or its attorney . . . If a matter is not admitted, the answer must 

specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. 

A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a 

party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted 

and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information 

as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry 

and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or 

deny. The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated . . . [¶] The requesting party may 

move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection. Unless the court finds an objection 

justified, it must order that an answer be served. On finding that an answer does not comply with 

this rule, the court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be 

served . . . Rule 37(a)(5) applies to an award of expenses.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) (emphasis 

added).

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party seeking discovery may 

move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or 

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have 

‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 

Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). Generally, if the 

Case 1:15-cv-01462-ADA-GSA Document 89 Filed 02/05/20 Page 4 of 8
5

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

responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel bears the burden of 

demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV S–10–

2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02–cv–

05646–AWI–SMS (PC), 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the 

moving party to inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to 

compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why the 

responding party’s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack v. 

Virga, No. CIV S–11–1030 MCE EFB P., 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011).

A. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff states that on July 31, 2019, he served Defendants with written discovery. (ECF 

No. 75 at 3:23-24.) Plaintiff provides evidence that on August 28, 2019, Defendants German, 

Holguin, and Burnitzki each served responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set two, and 

defendant Burnitzki served a response to Plaintiff’s request for admissions, set one. (Depo. of 

Pltf., ECF No. 75 at 42-58.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ responses were deficient and their 

objections were without merit. Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to respond to any of the 

interrogatories, instead they asserted vague and unmeritorious objections.

Specifically, Plaintiff requests further responses to the following:

(1) By defendant German – Interrogatories, set two, nos. 8 through 20;

(2) By defendant Holguin – Interrogatories, set two, nos. 8 through 23;

(3) By defendant Burnitzki – Interrogatories, set two, no. 10; and 

Request for Admissions, set one, no. 1.

 Plaintiff claims that his interrogatories were timely served according to the prison 

mailbox rule and Rule 33(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and “[a]ny untimeliness 

was due to staff obstruction by defendants’ coworkers.” (ECF No. 75 at 6:9-13, 7:24-28, 9:22-

26, 12:17-21, 13:23-27, 15:1-5, 16:24-29, 18:25-28, 20:7-11, 21:24-28, 23:1-5, 24:11-15, 25:27-

26:1-3.) 

Plaintiff declares that he lost the court’s March 19, 2018 Discovery and Scheduling Order 

when he was temporarily transferred to another prison on April 7, 2018, and he is not aware of 

Case 1:15-cv-01462-ADA-GSA Document 89 Filed 02/05/20 Page 5 of 8
6

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

the content of the order. (Pltf’s Decl., ECF No. 75 at 31-32 ¶¶ 1-3.) Therefore, Plaintiff was 

not aware that discovery requests must be served at least 60 days before the discovery deadline. 

Plaintiff asserts that on April 24, 2019, the court reopened discovery, with a discovery deadline 

of August 30, 2019, but due to delays at the prison he was unable to make copies of his written 

discovery for months and finally served the discovery on July 31, 2019 without keeping a copy 

for himself. (Id. at 32-33 ¶¶ 4-10.) Plaintiff contends that his discovery requests were timely 

served according to Rule 33(b)(2) and the prison mailbox rule, giving Defendants 30 days to 

respond before the discovery deadline. (Id. at 33 ¶ 11.) Plaintiff declares that if there were 

modifications to those rules contained in the court’s March 19, 2018 scheduling order, he was 

not aware of them because his copy of the order was lost. (Id. at 33 ¶ 12.) Plaintiff also declares 

that he was diligent, and any delay in the service of his discovery requests is due to staff 

obstruction by Defendants’ co-workers. (Id. at 33-34 ¶ 13.)

B. Defendants’ Opposition

Defendants request that Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed on September 20, 2019, be 

denied because Plaintiff’s written discovery requests were served on Defendants in an untimely 

manner. In support, Defendants provide evidence that Plaintiff served the requests on July 31, 

2019, which was well after the cut-off date established by the court in its Discovery and 

Scheduling Orders. The court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order issued on March 19, 2018 

required all discovery requests to be served at least 60 calendar days before the discovery 

deadline. (ECF No. 37 at 2.) On April 25, 2019, the court issued a new Scheduling Order 

resetting deadlines, establishing a new discovery deadline of August 30, 2019, and advising the 

parties that all other provisions of the March 19, 2018 Discovery and Scheduling Order remained 

the same. (ECF No. 65.) Defendants state that they asserted objections to Plaintiff’s written 

discovery requests and refused to respond to the requests because Plaintiff served them after the 

court’s cut-off date. 

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01462-ADA-GSA Document 89 Filed 02/05/20 Page 6 of 8
7

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

C. Discussion

Plaintiff states that he served discovery requests on Defendants on July 31, 2019 but did 

not receive full answers. He argues that Defendants’ responses to the interrogatories, set two, and 

request for admissions, set one, were deficient and their objections were without merit.

Plaintiff’s discovery requests are untimely. The Discovery and Scheduling Order required 

the parties to serve any discovery requests on the other party at least 60 days before the discovery 

deadline. Because the discovery deadline was August 30, 2019, Plaintiff’s discovery requests 

should have been served no later than July 1, 2019. Plaintiff did not serve his discovery requests 

until July 31, 2019, so they were untimely.

Plaintiff’s motion provides no basis for this court to compel defendants to respond to his 

discovery requests. Plaintiff’s arguments that his service was timely are without merit. Plaintiff 

has not shown, and the court finds no support for his argument that according to the mailbox rule 

and Rule 33(b), his service was timely. Plaintiff’s deadline for serving discovery requests was 

established by the court’s scheduling order, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the order. 

Plaintiff’s arguments that he should be excused from his untimely service are 

unpersuasive. Plaintiff argues that any untimeliness was due to staff obstruction by Defendants’ 

coworkers, but he fails to provide any facts or evidence showing what Defendants’ coworkers 

did to obstruct his ability to timely serve the discovery requests. Plaintiff asserts that he was not 

given enough access to the prison library to make copies before he served the discovery, but 

Plaintiff could have served the discovery requests -- and in fact did serve the discovery requests

-- upon Defendants before he was able to make copies. Plaintiff admits that he lost the March 

19, 2017 Discovery and Scheduling order and was not aware of the deadlines set therein. 

However, loss of the court’s order, when Plaintiff could have easily requested another copy of 

the order from the court, does not excuse Plaintiff from his failure to comply with the order.

Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s discovery requests were untimely served, and 

therefore Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be denied. 

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01462-ADA-GSA Document 89 Filed 02/05/20 Page 7 of 8
8

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

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel, 

filed on September 20, 2019, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01462-ADA-GSA Document 89 Filed 02/05/20 Page 8 of 8