Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01265/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01265-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

15cv1265-AJB-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Thomas Cenea,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. Stasiuk, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15cv1265-AJB-BGS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL A 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 

NO. 8

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants, correctional staff 

at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, failed to prevent an inmate from attacking her1, 

and that two of the Defendants failed to protect her because they used pepper spray to 

quell the attack instead of using physical force. (ECF No. 1.)

Defendants served nineteen interrogatories on Plaintiff on April 6, 2016. (ECF No. 

17-1 at 2.) Interrogatory No. 8 is the only basis of this dispute. It states: 

 

1 Plaintiff is a transgender inmate. Although she referred to herself using male pronouns in her 

Complaint, she has asked this Court to use female pronouns in all proceedings. (ECF No. 22.)

Case 3:15-cv-01265-AJB-BGS Document 27 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 4
2

15cv1265-AJB-BGS

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

Please list all persons (by name, address, telephone number, and inmate 

number [if applicable]) who have knowledge regarding Defendant D. Jaime, 

S. Rutledge, J. Bermudez, M. DeGuzman, R. Skogs, R. Toledo, and W. 

Smith’s alleged deliberate indifference to your Eighth Amendment rights in 

connection with the June 6, 2014 incident that is the subject of your lawsuit.

(Id., Ex. 1.) Plaintiff responded to this interrogatory and stated “Response (sic) is 

vague ambigus (sic) and calls for speculation.” (Id., Ex. 2.) 

Defendants filed a motion to compel on June 7, 2016 challenging Plaintiff’s 

objections to this interrogatory, and seeking a court order compelling Plaintiff to 

respond to the interrogatory. (ECF No. 17-1.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 

22, 2016 (ECF No. 25) and Defendants filed a reply on July 26, 2016. (ECF No. 

26.)

II. PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

Defendants argue that Plaintiff should be required to produce the names of 

potential witnesses, or be precluded from calling witnesses at trial that were not 

previously produced during discovery. (ECF No. 17-1.) Plaintiff’s opposition 

states that she provided Defendants with two “witnesses information and sworn 

declarations.” (ECF No. 25 at 2-3.) Plaintiff attached two exhibits to her 

opposition motion—a declaration from Mikel Webb (Exhibit 1) and a declaration 

from Kyle Avery (Exhibit 2). Plaintiff also attaches her own declaration. 

Defendants acknowledge that they received these declarations by mail from 

Plaintiff.2 (ECF No. 26 at 2.) However, Defendants argue that these declarations 

are not verified responses to Interrogatory No. 8, and it is “unknown if Plaintiff is 

 

2 Defendants characterize Plaintiff’s statement in one of her letters that she provided three declarations 

as falsification of the record. (ECF No. 26 at 2.) The Court finds that it is likely Plaintiff referenced her 

own declaration, in addition to the declarations from Mikel Webb and Kyle Avery, as the “3 witness 

declarations” in her June 15, 2016 letter. 

Case 3:15-cv-01265-AJB-BGS Document 27 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 4
3

15cv1265-AJB-BGS

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

aware of other witnesses besides the declarants.” (ECF No. 26 at 2.)

III. DISCUSSION

As mentioned above, Plaintiff objected to Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 8 

as “vague ambigus (sic) and calls for speculation.” (ECF No. 17-1, Ex. 2.) 

Notably, and notwithstanding these objections, Plaintiff produced two witness 

declarations. The Court first analyzes the merits of Plaintiff’s objections. 

A. Objection that Request is Vague and Ambiguous

Other than the mere assertion, Plaintiff offers no analysis of why she views 

Interrogatory No. 8 as too vague and ambiguous to respond. The party objecting to 

discovery as vague or ambiguous has the burden to show such vagueness or 

ambiguity by demonstrating that “more tools beyond mere reason and common 

sense are necessary to attribute ordinary definitions to terms and phrases.” Thomas 

v. Cate, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1012, 1030 (E.D. Cal. 2010), order clarified, 2010 WL 

797019 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2010) citing Moss v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., 

Inc., 241 F.R.D. 683, 696 (D.Kan. 2007); Johnson v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 238 

F.R.D. 648, 655 (D.Kan. 2006); accord Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 247 

F.R.D. 691, 695 (S.D.Fla. 2007) (“party properly objecting to an objection on the 

grounds of vagueness must explain the particular ways in which a request is 

vague”). Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden and therefore the objection is 

overruled. Moreover, the Court disagrees that Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 8 is 

vague or ambiguous. Defendants require the names of the witnesses that Plaintiff 

knows to have information regarding her allegations. That is neither vague, nor 

ambiguous and a common sense reading of the request is sufficient to allow 

Plaintiff to respond. 

B. Objection that Request Calls for Speculation

Plaintiff offers no analysis in support of her objection that Request No. 8 

calls for speculation. In responding to Request No. 8, Plaintiff is not required to 

guess as to who has knowledge regarding her claims. To the extent she has 

Case 3:15-cv-01265-AJB-BGS Document 27 Filed 09/09/16 Page 3 of 4
4

15cv1265-AJB-BGS

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

witnesses, she is required to disclose their names and contact information to 

Defendants. If Plaintiff is not aware of any witnesses, she need not speculate. The 

Court, therefore, OVERRULES this objection.

If the only two witnesses Plaintiff can identify are Mikel Webb and Kyle 

Avery, she needs to list those names in a proper response to Defendants’ 

Interrogatory. Interrogatories must be answered “under oath” and signed by the 

answering party. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), (5).) Providing the declarations 

attached to Plaintiff’s opposition motion is insufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s objections to Interrogatory No. 8 are OVERRULED. 

Defendants’ Motion to Compel a response to Interrogatory No. 8 is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff must provide Defendants a response no later than October 7, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 9, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01265-AJB-BGS Document 27 Filed 09/09/16 Page 4 of 4