Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904-14/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINCY SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CABRERA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

(Doc. 56)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Quincy Sims (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 21, 2012. This 

action for damages is proceeding against Defendant M. Cabrera (“Defendant”) for failing to 

protect Plaintiff from the threat of harm by gang members or affiliates while he was at Kern 

Valley State Prison, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant to produce all 

documents and evidence Defendant intends to use at trial. (Doc. 56.) Defendant filed an 

opposition on March 19, 2015. (Doc. 57.) Plaintiff has not yet filed a reply but the substantive

deficiencies in Plaintiff’s discovery request cannot be cured in a reply. Therefore, in the interest 

of resolving all pending motions and setting a new scheduling order, the Court elects to resolve the 

motion without waiting for the reply. Local Rule 230(l).

///

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 61 Filed 04/01/15 Page 1 of 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

2

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Compel

Plaintiff’s motion to compel violates the discovery and scheduling in two respects. (Doc. 

22.) First, Plaintiff represents that he served his request for the production of documents on 

January 11, 2015. (Doc. 56.) Pursuant to the discovery order, the responding party has forty-five 

days to serve a response, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) provides for an additional three 

days for mailing. (Doc. 22, ¶2.) The forty-fifth day fell on February 25, 2015, and with the 

additional three days for mailing, which was impacted by the intervening weekend, Defendant’s 

response was not due to be served until Monday, March 2, 2015. Therefore, Plaintiff prematurely 

served his motion to compel by mail on March 23, 2015.

Second, the parties were required to serve their discovery requests sufficiently in advance 

of the deadline to permit a response. (Doc. 22, ¶7.) In this case, the discovery deadline was 

January 13, 2015, and the service of a discovery request a mere two days before the deadline 

violated the order. (Id.)

Finally, Plaintiff’s motion to compel was procedurally deficient because he failed to 

include a copy of his discovery request. In no event will the Court order a response to a discovery 

request that was not presented to it for review. It is the moving party’s burden to include the 

relevant discovery requests and responses, if any, and to notify the Court which discovery requests 

are at issue and why the response, if any, was insufficient.

In this case, however, Defendant served a response to Plaintiff’s discovery request and 

included the requisite copies with his opposition. Accordingly, the Court is able to reach the 

merits of Plaintiff’s two discovery requests, and for the reasons which follow, Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel a further response is denied.

Plaintiff sought a transcript of his deposition. However, Plaintiff may not use a discovery 

request to avoid the reach of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(f)(3), which requires a party or 

deponent seeking a copy to pay the officer (the Certified Shorthand Reporter) reasonable charges. 

In any event, as Defendant pointed out in his opposition, Plaintiff has the benefit of a copy by 

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 61 Filed 04/01/15 Page 2 of 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

3

virtue of its attachment to Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition. No further 

response is warranted.

Plaintiff also sought all documents in Defendant’s possession or control that Defendant

intends to use at trial. Defendant responded that he has not yet identified documents for use at 

trial. As drafted, this request is excessively broad and the response is contingent upon Defendant 

having completed sufficient trial preparation to accurately identify which documents he plans to 

use. At this juncture in the proceedings, there is no trial date and Defendant has not yet filed a 

motion for summary judgment, which lends sufficient support to Defendant’s response for the 

Court to find it plausible, despite the Court’s recognition that Plaintiff did not have the benefit of 

initial disclosures. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(b)(iv). Additionally, this is Plaintiff’s third request for 

the production of documents, raising an issue over concerning which documents have already been 

produced and which documents, if any at all, are left to produce. Therefore, no further response is 

required. Given the modification to the scheduling order, addressed in a separate order, Plaintiff 

may draft a more precise document production request, but he is reminded that a purely 

speculative fishing expedition does not constitute a good faith engagement in discovery.1 

B. Reasonable Expenses Incurred in Opposing the Motion

If a motion to compel is denied, the Court “must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, 

require the movant, the attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party or deponent who 

opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney’s 

fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). However, “the court must not order this payment if the motion 

was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Id. 

Defendant seeks reasonable expenses incurred in the amount of $340.00 (two hours at $170.00 per

hour). Plaintiff has thirty days within which to file a response. 

///

///

 

1 Given Plaintiff’s incarceration, it is likely he is familiar with the type of documentation which would be generated 

by the events at issue in this action, and some amount of reason must be employed in drafting discovery requests. See

Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Northern Dist. of California, 98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[C]ourts 

should not allow prisoners to use federal discovery for fishing expeditions to investigate mere speculation.”)

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 61 Filed 04/01/15 Page 3 of 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

4

III. Order

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on February 26, 2015, is 

HEREBY DENIED, and within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff 

shall file a response to Defendant’s request for expenses incurred in opposing the motion to 

compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 61 Filed 04/01/15 Page 4 of 4