Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00298/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00298-13/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

 Plaintiff did not timely file an opposition to the motion. By order filed October 11, 1

2007, plaintiff was granted an additional period of thirty days in which to file an opposition to

the motion to compel. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELVIN CARVER JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0298 RRB JFM P

vs.

THE DIRECTOR OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On September 7, 2007, defendant filed a motion to compel discovery responses o

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2)(B). Defendant seeks to compel further responses to a

first set of interrogatories and a first request for production of documents, both served on June 6,

2007. On October 26, 2007, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. On October 29, 2007, 1

defendant filed a reply brief. Therein, defendant withdraws that part of the motion to compel that

seeks responses to his first request for production of documents due to plaintiff’s September 18,

2007 production of responsive documents.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00298-JAM -JFM Document 59 Filed 11/26/07 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

2

Defendant’s first set of interrogatories contains ten interrogatories. The motion to

compel focuses on plaintiff’s alleged failure to adequately respond to that portion of each

interrogatory which asks plaintiff to “state all facts” responsive to the particularly interrogatory if

his response to a companion request for admission was “not an unqualified admission.” See Ex.

B to Motion to Compel, filed September 7, 2007. In his first responses to the interrogatories,

plaintiff responded to each by providing a list of documents and/or witnesses. These responses

are responsive only to that part of each interrogatory that seeks “the names, addresses and

telephone numbers of all witnesses who support your response” id. and not to the request for a

statement of all facts that support each particular claim or contention, as described in each

interrogatory.

On or about September 18, 2007, plaintiff served supplemental responses to the

first set of interrogatories. See Declaration of Matthew Ross Wilson in Support of Defendant

Donald Neal, R.N.’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses

to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, filed October 29, 2007, at ¶ 4. The

supplemental responses consist of the following statement after each interrogatory:

Pursuant to Rule 33(a)(b) the Plaintiff has submitted all proper

information to the Defendants, outside of Legal Statute: This case

is based upon (State and CDC-R investigation) thus found within

the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint:

Ex. B to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel, filed October 26, 2007. This

response is also an inadequate response to defendant Neal’s request for a statement of the facts

upon which various claims and contentions raised by plaintiff are based.

In his opposition to the motion, plaintiff contends that he is relying on the findings

and results of investigations initiated by state employees following the events of the night of

January 4, 2001 to support his claims. Although plaintiff has provided defendant with relevant

direction to the facts on which he intends to rely at trial, in order to adequately respond to

defendant’s interrogatories he must nonetheless provide a specific statement of the particular

Case 2:05-cv-00298-JAM -JFM Document 59 Filed 11/26/07 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

3

facts on which he relies to support each claim or contention as described in each interrogatory. 

For that reason, defendant’s motion to compel will be granted. Plaintiff will be granted a period

of thirty days in which to serve supplemental responses to defendant’s interrogatories consistent

with this order.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s September 7, 2007 motion to compel is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to serve supplemental

responses to defendant’s first set of interrogatories.

DATED: November 26, 2007.

john0298.mtc

Case 2:05-cv-00298-JAM -JFM Document 59 Filed 11/26/07 Page 3 of 3