Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00971/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00971-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN DIMMICK,

Plaintiff, No. C 05-0971 PJH

v. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

On May 10, 2006, the court denied Dimmick’s Rule 56(f) motion. However, based

on Dimmick’s representations at the hearing, the court gave Dimmick leave to file

objections related to the government’s May 1, 2006, disclosures. Instead of filing

objections to the disclosures, Dimmick filed a motion that appeared to seek a reopening of

discovery in order to seek additional discovery, in order to lodge complaints about the

government’s prior disclosures and/or discovery responses, and in order to file a motion to

compel. On May 22, 2006, the court ordered a meet and confer and set a briefing

schedule to afford the government an opportunity to respond to the issues raised by

Dimmick. 

In response to the May 22, 2006 order, the parties met and conferred, and Dimmick

filed a motion to compel discovery on May 31, 2006, to which the government responded

on June 9, 2006. Having reviewed the papers, the court notes that once again, Dimmick’s

papers are less than comprehensible, and that he has failed to follow Civil L.R. 37-2, as

required by this court’s previous order. 

The court had anticipated that Dimmick would set forth the good cause in support of

leave to file this untimely motion to compel. There is absolutely no showing approaching

Case 4:05-cv-00971-PJH Document 50 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

good cause in Dimmick’s current papers. Additionally, Dimmick has also failed to address

the government’s May 2006 disclosures – the disclosures that Dimmick represented to the

court at the May 10, 2006 hearing necessitated the filing of this motion. Therefore,

because Dimmick has failed to reference those disclosures, the court may only assume

that there is no objection.

Instead, Dimmick reiterates the same issues previously denied by this court in

conjunction with his Rule 56(f) motion. He challenges the government’s responses to his

requests for production and to his interrogatories. 

As for the document requests, the court DENIES Dimmick’s motion in its entirety. 

Civil L.R. 37-2 required Dimmick to set forth in full the relevant requests for production. As

the government notes, he failed to do so; and also failed to attach the relevant requests for

production. Because he has failed to follow the local rules and because his papers lack

clarity and specificity, the court finds it nearly impossible to discern the government’s

alleged error(s) and the basis for granting Dimmick any relief. 

With respect to Dimmick’s interrogatories, the court DENIES Dimmick’s motion as to

all of the requests with the exception of one. Dimmick’s interrogatories as a whole are, to a

large degree, incomprehensible. The court finds that they are vague and ambiguous, do

not seek information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible

evidence, and that many of Dimmick’s challenges have been mooted by the parties’ meet

and confer. The only relief to which Dimmick is perhaps marginally entitled concerns

Special Interrogatory #4, which asks the government to:

Describe in detail when Lampiris first became aware of the drug study for

Tipranivir that began in March 2003 including how he became aware of the

study. 

The court therefore ORDERS the government to supplement its responses to provide

Dimmick with the date that Dr. Lampiris first became aware of the Tipranivir study, to the

extent that information exists, within thirty days of the date of this order.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES Dimmick’s motion in

Case 4:05-cv-00971-PJH Document 50 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

its entirety with the exception of Special Interrogatory #4. No further discovery motions will

be entertained.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2006

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00971-PJH Document 50 Filed 06/13/06 Page 3 of 3