Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01325/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01325-13/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LON CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

NICK DAWSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01325-OWW-SMS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL

(ECF Nos. 92, 96)

Plaintiff Lon Carter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the complaint, filed September 11, 2007, against

Defendants Dawson and Mendoza-Powers for unconstitutional conditions of confinement in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the institutional

policies of Defendants Dawson and Mendoza-Powers resulted in overcrowding, failure to conduct

cleaning inspections, provide hot water, and implement infection protocols causing him to contact

an infection in his knee which required surgery. Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice and

second motion to compel on February 28, 2011. (ECF Nos. 91, 92.) Defendants filed an opposition

on March 21,2011. (ECF No. 96.)

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

party’s claim or defense. . . . 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). The responding party is obligated to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest extent

possible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ.

1

Case 1:07-cv-01325-AWI-BAM Document 107 Filed 06/01/11 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

P. 33(b)(4). 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. L.H. v. Schwarzenegger,

No. S-06-2042 LKK GGH, 2007 WL 2781132, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2007). Further, the

responding party has a duty to supplement any responses if the information sought is later obtained

or the response provided needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(A). 

If Defendants object to one of Plaintiff’s discovery requests, it is Plaintiff’s burden on his

motion to compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. In general, 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 Defendants’ objections

are not meritorious. 

Plaintiff filed a second motion on February 28, 2011, moving to compel Defendants to

produce the Avenal State Grand Jury findings of 2008. Plaintiff does not identify a request for

production number, but states that Defendants were ordered to produce all injunctions issued

between 2003 and 2006 that were related to overcrowded conditions at Avenal State Prison and

alleges that Defendants withheld this document during discovery. The Court construes this to be

Request for Production No. 7. 

Defendants argue that the second motion to compel is untimely as it was filed three weeks

after the court ordered deadline to file his motion to compel. Additionally, Defendants point out that

a grand jury report is not a court ordered injunction and the document requested was created in 2008,

beyond the time frame ordered in the production of documents.

Although Plaintiff concedes that his motion was filed beyond the court ordered deadline, he

argues that his motion is not untimely as the court ordered deadline was for further motions to

compel based upon the denial of his motion filed January 30, 2011. Plaintiff argues that he was able

to bring other motions to compel. Additionally, if Defendants are correct that his motion is untimely,

the Court allowed Plaintiff to bring a motion to compel if he discovered that Defendants withheld

a document responsive to his requests. Plaintiff also asserts that he had good cause to bring a late

motion because he does not have access to a computer and he was preparing pleadings in an action

proceeding in Kings County Superior Court.

2

Case 1:07-cv-01325-AWI-BAM Document 107 Filed 06/01/11 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

On November 1, 2010, an orderissued partially granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF

No. 79.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a motion to compel within twenty days of service of

Defendants response. On January 4, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty day extension of time

to file a motion to compel. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff filed this motion to compel on February 28,

2011. (ECF No. 92.) 

Plaintiff is incorrect that the thirty day deadline was only for motions to compel resulting

from the order granting his prior motion and therefore he could bring other motions to compel.

Pursuant to the order issued on July 16, 2010, discovery in this action closed on August 16, 2010,

and all motions to compel had to be filed by that date. (ECF No. 52.) Additionally, the Court order

informing him that he could bring a motion to compel if he discovered that responsive documents

had been withheld was not an open ended opportunity to file additional motions to compel. Any

such motion had to be filed within the time frame set by the Court. Finally, neither Plaintiff’s

limited access to a computer or his time being occupied by preparing pleadings in other cases

constitute good cause to excuse his failure to comply with the time lines established by the Court. 

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion as untimely. 

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second motion to compel filed

February 28, 2011, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is informed that even had the motion to compel been timely the documents that he is requesting

1

are not responsive to his request for production. The document requested is not an injunction and does not fall

within the time frame that Defendants were ordered to produce responsive documents.

3

Case 1:07-cv-01325-AWI-BAM Document 107 Filed 06/01/11 Page 3 of 3