Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01264/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01264-7/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

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01264-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL

(Docs. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43)

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are several

motions to compel from Plaintiff. (Docs. #36-43.)

I. Discussion

A. Motions to Compel Filed on January 27, 2011

On January 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed several motions to compel Defendants to provide further

responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of

documents. Plaintiff contends that Defendants did not provide responses to some requests and the

other responses were evasive, vague, incomplete, or repetitive.

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions. Plaintiff’s motions fail to explain or elaborate on

how each interrogatory, request for admission, or request for production of document was evasive,

vague, incomplete, repetitive or otherwise improper. Plaintiff’s motions merely set forth general or

boilerplate arguments regarding relevance, privileges, vagueness, ambiguity, breadth, and undue

///

1

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 46 Filed 02/24/11 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

burden. Plaintiff fails to explain how any of these arguments applies to the specific discovery

requests propounded by Plaintiff or the specific objections raised by Defendants.

The vague and generalized nature of Plaintiff’s motions is apparent by the fact that Plaintiff

used the same boilerplate form document in all his motions. Plaintiff merely erased the irrelevant

portions of the form document and filled in the blanks with information such as Plaintiff’s name,

Defendants’ names, the name of the judge presiding over this action, the case number, and the dates

certain requests or responses were filed. Plaintiff’s motion is simply a document setting forth the

legal standards for discovery requests and contains no analysis pertinent to the facts specific to this

litigation.

It is Plaintiff’s burden on his motion to compel to demonstrate why Defendants’ objections

are not justified. Ordinarily, Plaintiff must inform the Court which specific 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 justified. Plaintiff cannot

prevail by filing a motion to compel that simply says that all his requests are relevant and all

Defendants’ objections are not justified. The Court will not comb through each and every discovery

request and response to determine whether the requests are relevant or whether Defendants’

objections are proper. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel will be denied.

Although the deadline for filing motions to compel has passed, the Court will provide

Plaintiff with an opportunity to file proper motions to compel regarding his first set of

interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents. Plaintiff may not

use this extension of time to file new discovery requests or file new motions to compel on issues not

addressed in the motions filed on January 27, 2011. Plaintiff’s amended motions to compel must

address each discovery request individually by (1) reproducing the request propounded by Plaintiff,

(2) reproducing the response from Defendants, (3) demonstrating how the request is relevant, and

(4) demonstrating how each objection was improper. Plaintiff must file any amended motion to

compel within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. No extensions of time will be

granted beyond the thirty (30) day deadline.

///

2

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 46 Filed 02/24/11 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

B. Motions to Compel Filed on February 10, 2011

Plaintiff has also filed three motions to compel Defendants to file responses to Plaintiff’s

second set of interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents. 

(Doc. #41-43.) Plaintiff argues that the discoveryrequests were propounded on December 20, 2010. 

Defendants informed Plaintiff on January 25, 2011, that no responses were forthcoming because the

requests were untimely. Defendants argued that the requests must be served at least forty-five (45)

days before the discovery deadline. Plaintiff contends that the requests were timely because they

need only be served within 30 days of the discovery deadline. Plaintiff contends that the default

deadline set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for responding to discovery requests is 30 days,

unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

Plaintiff argues that this Court’s discovery and scheduling order “does not stipulate any

specific amount of days [for responding to interrogatories], so therefore Plaintiff must adhere to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for guidance in this manner.” (Notice of Mot. to Compel

Responses to Interrogatories Set Two 2, ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff’s assertion is incorrect. 

In the Court’s May 25, 2010, discovery and scheduling order, the Court explicitly stated that

“[r]esponses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five (45) days after the request is first

served” and “[t]o ensure that the responding party has forty-five (45) days after the request is first

served to respond, discovery requests must be served at least forty-five (45) days before the

discovery deadline.” (Discovery Order / Scheduling Order ¶ 2-3, ECF No. 19.) The deadline for

conducting discoveryin this manner was January 25, 2011. Therefore, Plaintiff’s discoveryrequests

propounded on December 20, 2010, were untimely. The Court will not compel Defendants to

provide any further responses to those requests.

II. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel are DENIED; and

///

///

///

3

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 46 Filed 02/24/11 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

2. If Plaintiff wishes to file amended motions to compel, any such motion must be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 46 Filed 02/24/11 Page 4 of 4