Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00275/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00275-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANSE SULLIVAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLENBY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00275 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

(Document 42)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(Document 43)

Plaintiff Manse Sullivan (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement 

claim against Defendant Allenby.1

Pursuant to the December 9, 2015, Discovery and Scheduling Order, the discovery cut-off 

was May 9, 2016. The dispositive motion deadline is July 6, 2016.

On May 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and a motion to extend time for 

discovery. Defendant opposed the motion on May 23, 2016. Plaintiff did not file a reply and the 

motions are deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

A. MOTION TO COMPEL

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

party’s claim or defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant 

 

1

 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge.

Case 1:13-cv-00275-GSA Document 45 Filed 06/08/16 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

to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). 

Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. (quotation marks omitted).

Generally, “[t]he party opposing discovery bears the burden of resisting disclosure,” Rogers 

v. Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. 469, 479 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (citation omitted), but in cases such as this, the 

parties were relieved of the meet and confer requirement and the requirement that they file a joint 

statement regarding their discovery disagreement, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), 37(a)(1); Local Rule 251. 

As a result, Plaintiff bears an initial procedural burden in moving to compel; the Court is disinclined 

to sift through the parties’ discovery requests and responses in an effort to determine what is in 

dispute and why it is in dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). Plaintiff must identify which discovery 

requests are at issue and why he is entitled to the relief he seeks (e.g., why the information is 

relevant and why the objections lack merit). E.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P, 

2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell v. 

Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis v. Cambra, 

No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008).

It appears that Plaintiff seeks responses to his (1) First and Second Sets of Requests for 

Production; and (2) First Set of Interrogatories. According to Plaintiff, Defendant responded to his 

First Set of Requests for Production with a “limited amount of material because they refused to 

adhere to all of the request.” ECF No. 42, at 1. Plaintiff then served a Second Set of Requests for 

Production on April 28, 2016, and his First Set of Interrogatories on March 28, 2016. Plaintiff 

contends that Defendant has not responded to the interrogatories. 

As to the First Set of Requests for Production, although Plaintiff believes that the responses 

were insufficient, he does not identify what requests are in dispute, or why he believes that any of 

the responses were inadequate. The Court has reviewed Defendant’s March 21, 2016, responses to 

the fourteen requests for production in the First Set, and it appears that although Defendant set forth 

numerous objections, he either (1) produced documents to some extent; or (2) confirmed that 

responsive documents do not exist. Murphy Decl., Ex. 2. The Court will not guess as to how or 

why Defendant’s responses are insufficient.

Case 1:13-cv-00275-GSA Document 45 Filed 06/08/16 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

Plaintiff served his Second Set of Requests for Production on April 28, 2016, over one month 

after Defendant responded to the First Set. Responses were due on June 3, 2016, which is almost 

one month past the May 9, 2016, discovery cut-off. Plaintiff must serve his discovery with adequate 

time to allow for responses, and any related motions to compel, prior to the May 9, 2016, cut-off 

date. The December 9, 2015, Discovery and Scheduling order specifically explained these 

requirements to Plaintiff. ECF No. 30. The Court will not compel Defendant to respond to the 

Second Set of Requests for Production.

Finally, Plaintiff served his First Set of Interrogatories on March 28, 2016. Although 

Plaintiff states that Defendant never responded, Defendant filed a timely response on May 2, 2016. 

Murphy Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 4. It is possible that Plaintiff filed this motion, which was signed on May 6, 

2016, prior to receiving the responses. Nonetheless, as Defendant has responded, the Court will not 

compel an additional response.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is 

also DENIED.

B. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DISCOVERY

Plaintiff requests a two-month extension of the May 9, 2016, discovery deadline to (1) allow 

Defendant to provide supplemental response to the above discovery; and (2) “in order to build an 

adequate objection to Defendant’s pending dispositive motion or summary judgment motion.” ECF 

No. 43, at 1. 

Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of 

the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 

(9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply 

additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for 

seeking the modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “If the party seeking the modification ‘was 

not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic, 302 

F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

Case 1:13-cv-00275-GSA Document 45 Filed 06/08/16 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

To the extent that Plaintiff requests an extension to permit Defendant to provide 

supplemental responses, the Court has denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel, as explained above. In 

any event, if the Court had ordered additional responses after granting a motion to compel, such 

responses could be served after the discovery deadline.

The Court also notes that Plaintiff waited over one month after he received the First Set of 

Requests for Production before propounding the Second Set. Therefore, Plaintiff’s own delay 

caused the failure to timely serve discovery.

Insofar as Plaintiff seeks an extension to gather evidence to oppose a future dispositive 

motion, the Court will not extend the deadline for this reason, alone. If Plaintiff needs additional 

discovery if and when a dispositive motion is filed, he may move for such discovery under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).

Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:13-cv-00275-GSA Document 45 Filed 06/08/16 Page 4 of 4