Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00386/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00386-13/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY MCCLELLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 

et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:10-cv-0386-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 89)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s excessive force

claim against Defendants Lozano, Wood, and Perkins, who have appeared in the action. 

(ECF Nos. 23, 71, & 73.) 

On June 12, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to compel further responses to 

interrogatories. (ECF No. 89.) Plaintiff opposed the motion on June 29, 2015. (ECF No. 

92.) Defendants filed a reply on July 6, 2015. (ECF No. 96.)

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith. Asea, 

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 106 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 13
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

Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981). Parties may obtain 

discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to 

the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information 

need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead 

to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving 

to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g., 

Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P., 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 

13, 2012); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS (PC), 2008 WL 860523, at *4 

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the moving party to inform the Court which 

discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed 

response, why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party’s 

objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack v. Virga, No. 

CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P., 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011).

The court must limit discovery if the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs 

its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). “In each instance, the determination 

whether . . . information is discoverable because it is relevant to the claims or defenses 

depends on the circumstances of the pending action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory 

Committee’s note (2000 Amendment) (Gap Report) (Subdivision (b)(1)).

II. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Lozano Wood and Perkins slammed Plaintiff to 

the pavement when they arrested him on August 17, 2009. Defendant Wood and 

Perkins twisted Plaintiff’s arms behind his back and placed their knees on his back. 

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 106 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 13
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 knelt on the ground and Defendant Lozano tackled him. Plaintiff has had 

serious lingering physical injuries and mental health issues since the incident.

III. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

On March 6, 2015, Defendant Woods served a first set of interrogatories on 

Plaintiff, who filed timely responses. Defense counsel wrote two letters to Plaintiff 

outlining alleged deficiencies in these responses and requesting supplemental 

responses. Plaintiff replied to both letters, indicating that he had responded fully and 

declining to provide any additional information.

Defendants now move to compel, arguing that “Plaintiff’s discovery responses are 

entirely inadequate.” (ECF No. 89, at 4.) Defendants point out that Plaintiff has not 

complied with Local Rule 250.2(a), which sets forth the proper format for filing answers 

or objections to interrogatories, and that he has not properly verified the contents of his 

interrogatory responses. They argue that Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatories No. 1-4, 

12, and 17-21 impermissibly refer to or incorporate other documents, including the 

complaint; that Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 8 is not complete; that his 

responses to Interrogatories Nos. 14-16 and 22 impermissibly withhold information on 

the grounds that Defendants have independent access to it; and that Plaintiff has not 

provided required facts in his response to Interrogatory No. 23. The Court examines 

these contentions below.

A. Local Rule 250.2

Local Rule 250.2(a) requires the party propounding interrogatories to include a 

blank space after each question to enable the answering party to insert his responses or 

objections. The answering party then has two choices: he may either use the spaces 

provided for his responses, or he “shall retype the interrogatories along with the answers 

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 106 Filed 07/28/15 Page 3 of 13
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

and/or objections.” Local Rule 250.2(a)(emphasis added). Plaintiff did neither. Instead, 

his retyped responses omit the interrogatories entirely. (ECF No. 89-2, at 13-16.) This 

violates Local Rule 250.2, and makes it difficult for anyone reading Plaintiff’s responses 

to ascertain the question he is purporting to answer. The supplemental responses 

Plaintiff should submit in response to this order must comply with Local Rule 250.2, and 

include not only responses or objections, but the interrogatory itself.

B. Verification

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) requires interrogatory answers to be “answered 

separately and fully in writing under oath.” Where the answers are not sworn or 

notarized, such oaths should take substantially the following form: 

“I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the 

foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).” 

28 U.S.C. § 1746(2); Ayuso-Figueroa v. Rivera-Gonzalez, 456 F.Supp.2d 309, 

315 (D.P.R. 2005); see also, e.g., Davenport v. Bd. of Trustees of St. Ctr. Cmty. Coll. 

Dist., 654 F.Supp. 2d 1073, 1083 (E.D. Cal. 2009); Deseret Mgmt. Corp. v. United 

States, 75 Fed. Cl. 571, 574-575 (Fed. Cl. 2007).

Plaintiff’s oath states that he “swear[s] under penalty of perjury” that his 

interrogatory answers are “answered fully.” (ECF No. 89-2, at 17.) This wording is 

ambiguous, and leaves room for doubt regarding whether Plaintiff has attested to the 

truth of his interrogatory answers. See Deseret Mgmt. Corp., 75 Fed. Cl. At 574 

(requiring defendant to change the language of his oath, where previous phrasing 

“create[d] questions about the completeness of the answers and whether the answers 

will ultimately bind the party making them”). Upon submitting supplemental interrogatory 

responses, Plaintiff must include a new oath that includes the language quoted above. 

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 106 Filed 07/28/15 Page 4 of 13
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

C. Interrogatories 1-4, 12, and 17-21: Incorporation by Reference

1. Interrogatory No. 1

Please state all facts which support your claim that defendant Louis 

Woods used excessive force as alleged in your complaint.

a. Plaintiff’s Response

See paragraphs 2-6 as stated in the Fourth Amended Complaint 

filed under case no. 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS (PC).

2. Interrogatory No. 2

Please identify all persons who can support your claim that 

defendant Louis Woods used excessive force as alleged in your complaint.

b. Plaintiff’s Response

Same Response as above to Interrogatory No. 1.

3. Interrogatory No. 3

Please state all facts which support your claim that defendant 

Kenneth Perkins used excessive force as alleged in your complaint.

a. Plaintiff’s Response

Same Response as above to Interrogatory No. 1.

4. Interrogatory No. 4

Please identify all persons who can support your claim that 

defendant Kenneth Perkins used excessive force as alleged in your 

complaint.

a. Plaintiff’s Response

Same Response as above to Interrogatory No. 1.

5. Interrogatory No. 12

Please describe all special damages which you believe you have 

incurred as a result of the subject incident.

a. Plaintiff’s Response:

All damages are listed in FAC on page 3.

6. Interrogatory No. 17

Please identify all witnesses to this incident.

a. Plaintiff’s Response

Sergeant Leonard Larson, BP.D. (Badge #573) informed defendants 

LOZANO, WOOD (or WOODS), and PERKINS, to not file any charges 

because ‘excessive force’ used. Plaintiff himself heard the conversation 

between arresting defendants and Sergeant Larson. Court records and 

Pitchess Motion, pictures, etc., reveals and supports ‘excessive force’ civil 

rights violations. Also see paragraph 5 of FAC, page 4.

7. Interrogatory No. 18

Please state all facts which support your claim that you are entitled 

to damages from defendant Louis Woods.

a. Plaintiff’s Response

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 106 Filed 07/28/15 Page 5 of 13
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

6

Same for Interrogatory No. 17. Also see paragraphs 2-6 of FAC.

8. Interrogatory No. 19

Please identify all persons who can support your claim that you are 

entitled to

damages from defendant Louis Woods.

a. Plaintiff’s Response

Same for Interrogatory No. 17. Also see paragraphs 2-6 of FAC.

9. Interrogatory No. 20

Please state all facts which support your claim that you are entitled 

to damages from defendant Kenneth Perkins.

a. Plaintiff’s Response

Same for Interrogatory No. 17. Also see paragraphs 2-6 of FAC.

10. Interrogatory No. 21

Please identify all persons who can support your claim that you are 

entitled to damages from defendant Kenneth Perkins.

a. Plaintiff’s Response:

Same for Interrogatory No. 17. Also see paragraphs 2-6 of FAC.

11. Defendants’ Objections to Interrogatories 1-4, 12, and 17-21 are

substantially identical:

“Plaintiff’s response is improper. He is required to provide an answer to 

the interrogatory which is complete in itself and he should not refer to the 

pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other interrogatories. 

Mulero-Abreu v. P.R. Police Dep’t, 675 F.3d 88, 93 (1st Cir. 2012); Scaife 

v. Boenne, 191 F.R.D. 590, 594. (N.D. Ind. 2000).

Plaintiff should be ordered to amend his response accordingly.”

Defendants also argue that Interrogatory No. 17 is non-responsive, and 

that Plaintiff should be required to provide the names, addresses, and 

telephone numbers of any witnesses. 

12. Analysis

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatories 1-4, 12, and 17-21 are 

insufficient because they refer either to his complaint or to responses to previous 

interrogatories. Rule 33(b)(3) requires each interrogatory to be answered separately and 

fully, without reference to other interrogatories or documents. Mulero-Abreu v. P.R. 

Police Dep’t, 675 F.3d 88, 93 (1st Cir. 2012)(“answering interrogatories simply by 

directing the proponent to rummage through other discovery materials falls short of the 

obligations imposed by Rule 33”); United States ex rel. O’Connell v. Chapman 

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 106 Filed 07/28/15 Page 6 of 13
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

7

University, 245 F.R.D. 646, 650 (C.D. Cal. 2007)(“an interrogatory should be complete in 

itself and should not refer to the pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to 

other interrogatories”). 

References to statements in a complaint are also problematic because such 

statements are mere allegations; an interrogatory response, by contrast, contains facts

that Plaintiff has verified under penalty of perjury are true and correct to the best of his 

knowledge. Hash v. Cate, No. C 08-03729, 2012 WL 6043966, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 

2012); see also Guerrero v. McClure, No. CIV S-10-0318 GEB, 2011 WL 4566130, at *6 

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2011). Plaintiff must be specific as to the amount of damages he is 

requesting, and may not merely refer Defendants to other documents where he has 

enumerated the damages sought. See Ray v. Wash. Nat’l Ins. Co., 190 F.R.D. 658, 665 

(D. Mont. 1999); Beckner v. El Cajon Police Dep't, No. 07cv509, 2008 WL 2033708, at 

*6 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2008). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff will be ordered to provide good faith, supplemental 

responses to Defendants’ interrogatories, omitting references to other documents, and 

specifying as clearly as possible the facts requested by each interrogatory. See Hickman 

v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) (“Mutual knowledge of 

all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that 

end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his 

possession.”).

The Court also agrees the Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 17 is nonresponsive, and orders him to provide the names and last known addresses and phone 

numbers of all witnesses. If he is not in possession of requested information, he should 

so state in his response to that particular interrogatory. 

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 106 Filed 07/28/15 Page 7 of 13
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

8

D. Interrogatory No. 8: Medical History

1. Interrogatory No. 8

Please identify any and all health care providers, including but not limited to

medical doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists or other medical practitioners and medical 

and psychological facilities, you have consulted with or have been treated by in the past 

ten (10) years.

a. Plaintiff’s Response

Health Care providers are CDCR and Kern County Sheriff Department.

2. Defendants’ Objections

This interrogatory asks for all health care providers who have 

treated the Plaintiff for the last ten years, not just relating to this incident. 

Plaintiff should be ordered to amend his response to include all health care 

providers whom he has seen in the last ten years.

3. Analysis

The Court will grant the motion to compel as to Interrogatory No. 8. Plaintiff’s 

complaint attributes the onset of post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as serious

physical injuries, including three broken vertebrae and a hip replacement, to Defendants’ 

alleged use of excessive force. The medical care Plaintiff received after the arrest is 

relevant to the question of damages; Plaintiff’s pre-arrest care is relevant to determining 

which injuries were actually the result of force used during Plaintiff’s arrest. See

Gatewood v. Stone Container Corp., 170 F.R.D. 455, 460 (S.D. Iowa 1996). In addition, 

Defendants requested the names of individual health providers, not merely the agencies 

that employed them. Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to supplement his 

interrogatory responses with the names, specialties, and place of employment of the 

medical and mental health staff who have treated him, in and outside of prison, for last 

decade.

E. Interrogatories 14-16: Criminal Records and History

1. Interrogatory No. 14

Please identify each and every felony you have been convicted of, 

including (a) the city and state where you were convicted; (b) the date of 

conviction; (c) the offense; (d) the court and case number.

a. Plaintiff’s Response

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 106 Filed 07/28/15 Page 8 of 13
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

9

Response in accord with Court Order; Defendants have full access 

to this information, as they are peace officers.

2. Interrogatory No. 15

Please identify each and every misdemeanor you have been 

convicted of, including (a) the city and state where you were convicted; (b) 

the date of conviction; (c) the offense; (d) the court and case number.

a. Plaintiff’s Response

Defendants have full access to this information, as they are peace officers.

3. Interrogatory No. 16

Were you on parole at the time of the subject incident? If so, please 

identify: (1) the name of your parole officer or agent; (2) any and all terms 

of your parole; (3) the date your parole commenced; and (4) the date your 

parole ended.

a. Plaintiff’s response

Defendant[s] have full access to this information, as they are peace

officers.

4. Interrogatory No. 22

Please state each and every time when you have been 

incarcerated, including the dates of incarceration, conviction, and place of 

incarceration.

a. Plaintiff’s Response:

Defendants have full access to this information, as they are peace 

officers.

b. Defendants’ Objections to Interrogatories 14, 15, 16, and 22 are 

substantially identical: 

“Defendants do not know what Court Order Plaintiff is referring to in 

his response [to Interrogatory No. 14]. Further, Plaintiff is required to 

respond to this interrogatory whether or not another party may have access 

to some of the information. Surely, he is aware of his own criminal history 

and he is required to so state. Reference to information in the possession 

of government agencies, without also producing the information or 

documents, does not justify any refusal to provide a substantive, narrative 

response under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.

Further, Plaintiff’s response that the Defendants have full access to 

information regarding the Plaintiff’s criminal history is equally flawed. 

Defendants have no knowledge regarding the Plaintiff’s criminal history 

outside of any arrests made by the Bakersfield Police Department, do not 

know what crimes the Plaintiff has been convicted of, etc. 

However, this information is unarguably discoverable. Plaintiff’s 

criminal history goes directly to not only his credibility but to liability and 

damages in this case. While a complete and honest response to this 

interrogatory may be embarrassing to the Plaintiff or shed [sic] him in an 

unfavorable light, he is required to provide a complete and further response

to this interrogatory. Plaintiff should be ordered to amend his response 

accordingly.”

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 106 Filed 07/28/15 Page 9 of 13
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

10

5. Analysis 

Defendants’ objections to Interrogatories 14, 15, and 16 are well taken. Although 

Defendants’ positions as peace officers may give them some access to Plaintiff’s parole 

or conviction history, Plaintiff provides no evidence that they have access to all of it. 

Meanwhile, Plaintiff’s conviction history is relevant for impeachment purposes. Fed. R. 

Evid. 609. His status as a parolee may likewise be relevant to establishing whether the 

arrest, and potentially the use of force, by Defendants was warranted. Therefore, 

Plaintiff must supply the requested information regarding his prior felony and 

misdemeanor convictions, as well as the details of his parole status, in supplemental

responses. See Del Campo v. Am. Corrective Counseling Svcs., No. C 01-21151, 2008 

WL 2038047, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2008); Wyatt v. City of Richland Police Dep’t, No. 

CV-05-5013, 2005 WL3118123, at *1 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 22, 2005).

However, Defendants have not provided support for the relevancy of the places 

where Plaintiff was previously incarcerated, as requested in Interrogatory No. 22. As 

stated above, Defendants may impeach Plaintiff’s testimony with evidence of his prior 

convictions. However, Defendants may not impeach Plaintiff with prior arrests or 

charges of which he was not convicted. See Wyatt, No. CV-05-5013, 2005 WL3118123,

at *1. It is not clear what relevance even post-conviction places of incarceration would 

have, beyond the relevance of the convictions themselves, and Defendants have not 

provided any information on this point. Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants’ 

motion to compel as to Interrogatory No. 22, and Plaintiff need not supplement his 

response to that interrogatory.

F. Interrogatory No. 23: Incorporation of Requests for Admission

1. Interrogatory No. 23

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 106 Filed 07/28/15 Page 10 of 13
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

11

For each Plaintiff’s Response to each request for admission served 

with these interrogatories that is an unqualified admission:

(a) state the number of the request;

(b) state all facts upon which you base your Plaintiff’s Response;

(c) state the names, addresses , and telephone numbers of all 

persons who have

knowledge of those facts;

(d) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your 

Plaintiff’s Response and state the name, address, and telephone number 

of the person who has each document or thing.

b. Plaintiff’s Response

There are no unqualified admissions, as the plaintiff’s responses are 

based on his own information and what he actually heard or seen or 

experienced himself. Sergeant Leonard Larson (Badge #573), took 

photographs of plaintiff’s injuries and talked to plaintiff, Sergeant Leonard 

Larson (Badge #573) concluded that the arresting defendants used 

‘excessive force’. The photographs taken by Sergeant Larson are 

consistent with the allegations that are contained in the civil rights 

complaint. The Kern County Superior Court also concluded that plaintiff 

stated a case for ‘excessive force’ in his Pitchess Motion (BF-131041A) 

and allowed plaintiff to look into the personnel records of three

defendants (both WOODS and PERKINS had similar incidents like the one 

involving plaintiff on 8-17-2009).

a. Defendants’ Objections

Plaintiff has denied each and every request for admission served on 

him. As such, he is required to provide the facts, identity of witnesses, and 

documents that support each and every denial separately.

2. Analysis

The Court will deny the motion to compel as to Interrogatory 23. As an initial 

matter, Defendants have not included all requests for admission along with the motion to 

compel. See ECF No. 89-2, at 28-30(addressing Plaintiff’s denials of Requests for 

Admission 13-16). Thus, the Court has no means of evaluating Plaintiff’s denials, or 

even of determining how many requests for admission were served on Plaintiff. 

In addition, the Court finds problematic Defendants’ incorporation by reference of 

numerous requests for admission into the interrogatories. Rule 33(a) limits the number 

of interrogatories one party may serve on another to 25. Where an interrogatory asks the 

responding party to provide the basis for denials of requests for admission, there is a 

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 106 Filed 07/28/15 Page 11 of 13
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

12

presumption that each of the underlying requests for admission counts as a separate 

interrogatory. See Safeco of Am. v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 446 (C.D. Cal. 1998); 

Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, No. 10-CV-0940 2014 WL 3490356, at *5 (S.D. Cal. July 

11, 2014). Here, Defendant appears to have served at least 16 requests for admission, 

and in the absence of complete information about them, the Court will treat each as a 

separate interrogatory, putting the number of interrogatories above the limit in Rule 

33(a). 

The distinct purposes of interrogatories and requests for admission support this 

treatment. See Safeco, 181 F.R.D. at 445 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Makaeff, 2014 WL 3490356, 

at *4. “Strictly speaking, Rule 36, [which governs requests for admission,] is not a 

discovery procedure at all, since it presupposes that the party proceeding under it knows 

the facts or has the document and merely wishes its opponent to concede their 

genuineness.” Safeco, 181 F.R.D. at 445 (citations omitted). “Allowing service of an 

interrogatory which requests disclosure of all the information on which the denials of... 

requests for admissions were based essentially transforms each request for admission 

into an interrogatory. This is not the purpose requests for admission were intended to 

serve, and because Rule 36 imposes no numerical limit on the number of requests for 

admission that may be served, condoning such a practice would circumvent the 

numerical limit contained in Rule 33(a).” Safeco, 181 F.R.D. at 445; Makaeff, 2014 WL 

3490356, at *7; see also Jadwin v. Cnty. of Kern, No. 1:07-cv-0026 2008 WL 3820288, 

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2008)(concluding that interrogatory requiring Defendants to state 

all facts on which unqualified admissions in 290 requests for admission were based was 

“oppressive or unduly burdensome”).

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 106 Filed 07/28/15 Page 12 of 13
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

13

Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion to compel as to Interrogatory No. 23, 

and will not require Plaintiff to supplement his response to it

I. CONCLUSION & ORDER

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 89) as to Interrogatories 

Nos. 1-4, 8, 12, and 14-21, to which Plaintiff must file supplemental responses. The 

Court DENIES the motion to compel as to Interrogatories Nos. 22 and 23.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 89) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 

in PART;

2. Plaintiff shall provide further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1-4, 8, 12, and 14-

21 within thirty (30) days of service of this order;

3. Defendants may, but need not, file a further motion to compel within fourteen (14) 

days of service of Plaintiff’s further response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00386-LJO-MJS Document 106 Filed 07/28/15 Page 13 of 13