Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00680/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00680-1/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FLOYD PERRYMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JASDEEP BAL, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-680-WBS-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant has filed a motion to compel, which plaintiff 

opposes. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to compel, which defendant opposes. Additionally, 

defendant has filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order. For the reasons that 

follow, all three motions are granted. 

I. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

 Defendant served plaintiff with interrogatories on July 16, 2014, and plaintiff served a 

response to those interrogatories on September 18, 2014. ECF No. 21 at 1. Nevertheless, 

defendant requests an order compelling plaintiff to provide “further, verified, responses” because 

plaintiff’s responses were “evasive, incomplete, and non-responsive . . . .” Id. 

 Defendant first notes that plaintiff failed to verify his responses to the interrogatories. Id. 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-00680-WBS-EFB Document 27 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 5
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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(3)1 requires that “[e]ach interrogatory must, to the extent it 

is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing and under oath.” (Emphasis 

added). Plaintiff signed his interrogatory responses but failed to verify that they were made under 

oath. See id., Rouse Decl., Ex. B. Accordingly, plaintiff’s responses to defendant’s 

interrogatories did not comply with Rule 33(b)(3). 

 Defendant argues that most of plaintiff’s responses to the twenty-four interrogatories are 

deficient for additional reasons. Specifically, defendant argues that (1) plaintiff’s response to 

interrogatory 4 is non-responsive, (2) plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories 2, 3, 5, 9, and 12 

simply refer to plaintiff’s complaint, (3) plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories 6-8, 10-11, and 

13-23 just refer to other deficient interrogatory responses. Id. at 1-2. The court’s review of 

plaintiff’s responses is consistent with defendant’s arguments. See id., Rouse Decl., Ex. B. As 

noted above, Rule 33(b)(3) requires that each interrogatory be answered “separately and fully in 

writing under oath.” (Emphasis added). Plaintiff has not done so here. Accordingly the motion 

to compel further responses that comply with the rule is granted. 

Furthermore: 

It is well established that an answer to an interrogatory must be 

responsive to the question. It should be complete in itself and 

should not refer to the pleadings, or to depositions or other 

documents, or to other interrogatories, at least where such 

references make it impossible to determine whether an adequate 

answer has been given without an elaborate comparison of 

answers. 

Scaife v. Boenne, 191 F.R.D. 590, 594 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (citations and internal quotations 

omitted). Plaintiff’s supplemental responses shall comply with these requirements. 

 Because the responses that plaintiff served on September 18, 2014 are deficient, plaintiff 

is ordered to separately and fully answer interrogatories 2-23 in writing under oath, or state with 

specificity any objections he has to a given interrogatory. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b). 

///// 

 1

 All subsequent references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

Case 2:14-cv-00680-WBS-EFB Document 27 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 5
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

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

 Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant to respond to a discovery request that 

plaintiff served on October 21, 2014 (“Interrogatories Set Two”). ECF No. 22 at 1. According to 

plaintiff, defendant’s refusal to respond to the Interrogatories Set Two rests on an incorrect 

interpretation of the court’s October 9, 2014 modification of the discovery and scheduling order. 

Id. A brief review of the procedural history of this case indicates that it is plaintiff that 

misinterprets the October 9, 2014 order. 

 The original discovery and scheduling order provided, inter alia, that “all requests for 

discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 shall be served not later than August 15, 

2014.” ECF No. 14. October 10, 2014, the court modified the discovery and scheduling order as 

follows: 

1. The parties may conduct discovery until January 23, 2015. Any 

motions to compel discovery shall be filled by that date. 

 

2. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before April 17, 2015. 

Motions shall be briefed in accordance with paragraph 8 of the 

order filed April 25, 2014. 

 

3. All other dates and orders specified in the Court June 30, 2014 

Discovery and Scheduling Order (Doc. 14) remain in effect. 

ECF No. 20. Thus, even under the modified discovery and scheduling order, all requests for 

discovery (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36) were due August 15, 2014. Because plaintiff 

did not serve his Interrogatories Set Two until October 21, 2014—more than two months after the 

deadline under the discovery and scheduling order—defense counsel properly responded that the 

deadline for propounding those interrogatories had expired. See ECF No. 22 at 10. 

 Nevertheless, as discussed below, the deadline for completion of discovery shall be 

modified so that plaintiff may obtain responses to his previously untimely interrogatories. Under 

that revised schedule defendant shall respond to plaintiff’s interrogatories. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-00680-WBS-EFB Document 27 Filed 02/12/15 Page 3 of 5
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. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER 

Defendant seeks an extension of the deadlines to conduct discovery and to file dispositive 

motions. ECF No. 26. A scheduling order may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the 

deadline despite exercising due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

 Defendant contends: 

Defendant has been diligent in conducting discovery and needs 

discovery to be completed before preparing any dispositive 

motions. Prior to filing his motion to compel, Defendant met and 

conferred with Plaintiff over Plaintiff’s deficient discovery 

responses. Doc. 21 et seq. Defendant cannot depose Plaintiff, or 

file a dispositive motion, until Plaintiff has provided sufficient 

responses to written discovery. 

Since the current deadline to conduct discovery expires in one 

week (on January 23, 2015), and Defendant has a pending motion 

to compel, it will be impossible for Defendant to complete 

discovery by the current deadline. 

ECF No. 26 at 3. 

 The court modifies the scheduling order here for three reasons. First, in light of recent 

Ninth Circuit opinions, the forty-seven days that the discovery and scheduling order provided the 

parties to serve discovery requests arguably did not provide plaintiff—who is proceeding in pro 

per and in forma pauperis while incarcerated—with an appropriate opportunity to conduct 

discovery. See Calloway v. Veal, 571 F. App’x 626, 626 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The district court erred 

by entering judgment against Calloway—who appeared below in pro per and in forma pauperis 

while incarcerated—without providing him an appropriate opportunity to conduct discovery.”). 

Second, plaintiff’s Interrogatories Set Two consists of just five interrogatories and should impose 

no great burden in responding. See id. at 626 (“Defendants are reminded of their obligation to 

refrain from engaging in obstruction of Calloway’s reasonable discovery requests, particularly in 

light of the obvious disadvantages he faces in prosecuting this case.”) (citing Wanderer v. 

Case 2:14-cv-00680-WBS-EFB Document 27 Filed 02/12/15 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 653 (9th Cir. 1990)). Lastly, the court is further modifying the discovery 

and scheduling order to include extensions that will provide both parties sufficient time to 

conduct discovery and prepare any dispositive motions. 

IV. ORDER 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 

21) and plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 22) are each granted. Within 21 days from the 

date of this order, plaintiff shall serve defendants with responses to interrogatories 2-23 that 

comply with Rule 33(b)(3), and defendant shall serve plaintiff with responses to Interrogatories 

Set Two, which plaintiff served on October 21, 2014. 

 Additionally, the court modifies the discovery and scheduling order as follows: 

 1. The parties may conduct discovery until May 12, 2015. Any additional motions to 

compel discovery shall be filed by that date. 

 2. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before August 10, 2015. Motions shall be brief 

in accordance with paragraph 8 of the order filed April 25, 2014. 

 3. All other dates and orders specified in the Court’s June 30, 2014 Discovery and 

Scheduling Order (ECF No. 14) remain in effect. 

DATED: February 11, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00680-WBS-EFB Document 27 Filed 02/12/15 Page 5 of 5