Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00762/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00762-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332pl Diversity-Product Liability

---

1 

16CV762-JAH(BLM) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTOINE L. CHAMBERS, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 

JANSSEN LP, JOHNSON & JOHNSON & 

JOHNSON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, 

LLC, AND DOES 1-5 

Defendants.

Case No.: 16CV762-JAH(BLM) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

RESPONSES 

[ECF No. 30] 

 

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ April 18, 2018 motion to compel discovery 

responses. ECF No. 30-1 (“MTC”). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion is 

GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND 

The instant matter was initiated on March 31, 2016 when Plaintiff sued Defendants for 

strict liability, negligence, negligence per se, false advertising, fraudulent concealments, 

fraudulent misrepresentation, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, unfair 

business practices, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and reckless 

endangerment related to Plaintiff’s use of the prescription medication Risperdal. ECF No. 1. 

Plaintiff alleges that he suffered numerous injuries due to his use of Risperdal and seeks 

compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief as the Court 

Case 3:16-cv-00762-JAH-BLM Document 32 Filed 05/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2 

16CV762-JAH(BLM) 

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

may deem just and proper. Id. 

On March 7, 2017, the Court issued a Scheduling Order Regarding Discovery and Other 

Pretrial Proceedings. ECF No. 18. On May 2, 2017, Defendants served Plaintiff with 

Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. MTC at 3; see 

also ECF No. 30-2, Declaration of Steven M. Selna, In Support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel 

Discovery (“Selna Decl.”) at Exhs. A and B. On July 25, 2017, after Plaintiff failed to respond, 

Defendants sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter regarding the delinquent discovery responses. 

MTC at 3. Defendants also attempted to call Plaintiff about the discovery responses. Id. Plaintiff 

did not respond. Id. On September 12, 2017, Plaintiff appeared for his deposition. Id. At the 

deposition, Plaintiff stated that he had not received the discovery at issue or the meet and confer 

letter and noted that the address Defendants had been given when Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew 

was incorrect.1 Id. 

On October 19, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue Deadlines in the 

Scheduling Order to provide the parties with additional time to complete discovery. ECF No. 21. 

The Court granted the motion extending the case deadlines for approximately ninety days. ECF 

No. 23. Defendants continued to have difficulty communicating with Plaintiff who failed to 

respond to multiple phone calls and emails until January 10, 2018. MTC at 4. On January 18, 

2018, the parties filed another Joint Motion to Continue Deadlines in the Scheduling Order. ECF 

No. 24. That motion was granted on January 19, 2018. ECF No. 26. 

On January 22, 2018, Defendants re-served their Interrogatories, Set One and Requests 

for Production of Documents, Set One. MTC at 4; see also Selna Decl. at Exhs. A and B. Plaintiff 

failed to respond. MTC at 4. During a telephonic meet and confer with Plaintiff on March 22, 

2018, Plaintiff informed Defendants that he again did not receive their discovery requests. Id. 

at 5. During the call, in which Judge Major’s law clerk participated, Defendants emailed the 

                                                      

1 Plaintiff was represented by counsel when he initiated this case. See Docket. On January 3, 

2017, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel without substitution. ECF No. 6. 

The motion was denied as moot on March 6, 2017 when Plaintiff agreed to proceed pro se. ECF 

No. 17. 

Case 3:16-cv-00762-JAH-BLM Document 32 Filed 05/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3 

16CV762-JAH(BLM) 

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

discovery requests to Plaintiff who confirmed receipt. Id. Plaintiff also agreed to respond to 

defense counsel within ten business days with a date by which he would serve responses to the 

requests. As of the filing of this motion, Defendants have not received responses to their 

discovery requests. Id. After Defendants filed their motion to compel, the Court issued a briefing 

schedule requiring Plaintiff to file his opposition by May 4, 2018. ECF No. 31. Plaintiff did not 

file an opposition or any other document. See Docket. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is defined as follows: 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that 

is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 

needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake 

in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access 

to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense 

of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information 

within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to 

be discoverable. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See 

Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). District courts also have broad discretion 

to limit discovery to prevent its abuse. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) (instructing that courts must 

limit discovery where the party seeking the discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the 

information by discovery in the action” or where the proposed discovery is “unreasonably 

cumulative or duplicative,” “obtain[able] from some other source that is more convenient, less 

burdensome, or less expensive,” or where it “is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)”). 

Parties are required to respond to interrogatories to the fullest extent possible in writing 

under oath. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). Answers and objections must be served within thirty days 

after being served with the interrogatories and any objections must be stated with specificity. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2) and (b)(4). “Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived 

unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). 

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule 26(b). 

Case 3:16-cv-00762-JAH-BLM Document 32 Filed 05/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4 

16CV762-JAH(BLM) 

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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). The responding party is responsible for all items in the “responding party’s 

possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). A party who has been served must 

respond in writing within thirty days of being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). “For each 

item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be 

permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, 

including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). A party who fails to file timely objections 

[to discovery requests] waives all objections. Browning v. Lilien, 2016 WL 4917115, at *5 (S.D. 

Cal. Sept. 15, 2016) (citing Ramirez v. County of L.A., 231 F.R.D. 407, 409 (C.D. Cal 2005) 

(citing Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir.), cert. 

dismissed, 506 U.S. 948 (1992) (“[F]ailure to object to discovery requests within the time 

required constitutes a waiver of any objection.”)). 

“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” 

Alexis v. Rogers, 2017 WL 1967328, at *8 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2017) (quoting King v. Atiyeh, 814 

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). “A party's lack of counsel may be considered in evaluating the 

willfulness of discovery violations and the failure to obey court orders and in weighing the other 

factors regarding dismissal, but pro se status does not excuse intentional noncompliance with 

discovery rules and court orders.” Id. (quoting Sanchez v. Rodriguez, 298 F.R.D. 460, 470 (C.D. 

Cal. Mar. 18, 2014) (citing Lindstedt v. City of Granby, 238 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding 

that “[a] pro se litigant is bound by the litigation rules as is a lawyer, particularly here with the 

fulfilling of simple requirements of discovery”); and Gordon v. County of Alameda, 2007 WL 

1750207, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2007) (“pro se plaintiffs must abide by the rules of 

discovery”). 

“If an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 

7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for 

ruling by the court.” See CivLR 7.1(f)(3)(c); see also Heston v. GB Capital Holdings, LLC, 2016 

WL 4468254, at *2, n.1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2016) (noting that “[a] district court may properly 

grant an unopposed motion pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not 

require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond.”) (citing Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

Case 3:16-cv-00762-JAH-BLM Document 32 Filed 05/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5 

16CV762-JAH(BLM) 

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

54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for failing to oppose a motion to dismiss, based on a local 

rule providing that “[t]he failure of the opposing party to file a memorandum of points and 

authorities in opposition to any motion shall constitute consent to the granting of the motion”)). 

DISCUSSION 

Defendants seek an order from the Court compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ 

written discovery including Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, 

Set One within fifteen days of the Court’s order on this motion. MTC at 9. 

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion. See Docket. 

Given the procedural history set forth above, the Court is confident that Plaintiff received 

the requests for discovery, was aware of his obligation to respond to those requests, and 

intentionally failed to do so. On March 22, 2018, Plaintiff participated in a conference call with 

Judge Major’s law clerk and defense counsel Andrea Smith, during which Plaintiff confirmed 

receipt of the discovery requests via email and agreed that he would get in touch with Ms. Smith 

in ten business days to let her know when he would have the discovery responses completed.2 

Plaintiff failed to do so. Additionally, Plaintiff was made aware of the instant motion as the 

motion was served to him via the United States Postal Service and email on April 18, 2018 [see 

ECF No. 30-5] and the briefing schedule ordering Plaintiff to oppose Defendants’ motion to 

compel by May 4, 2018 was mailed to Plaintiff by the Clerk’s Office on April 19, 2018. ECF No. 

31 (“All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service”). 

By failing to respond or object to Defendants’ discovery requests, Plaintiff has waived all 

objections to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production served by Defendants. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P 33(b)(4) and 34; see also Browning v. Lilien, 2016 WL 4917115, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 

15, 2016). Also, by failing to oppose Defendants’ motion to compel, Plaintiff has consented to 

                                                      

2 Following the call in which Plaintiff clarified his address, Judge Major’s law clerk called the 

Clerk’s Office and had Plaintiff’s address as shown on the docket corrected. The Docket initially 

stated that Plaintiff lived on Shades Hill Drive as opposed to his correct address which is 

Shadescale Drive. See Docket; see also ECF No. 27 (mail returned as undeliverable from Shades 

Hill Drive). 

Case 3:16-cv-00762-JAH-BLM Document 32 Filed 05/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6 

16CV762-JAH(BLM) 

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

the granting of the motion. See CivLR 7.1(f)(3)(c). Additionally, the Court notes that the instant 

case has been pending for more than two years and that Defendants have not received basic 

discovery responses from Plaintiff, despite their repeated efforts. Accordingly, Defendants’ 

motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve responses to Defendants’ 

Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on or before June 

4, 2018. Plaintiff is warned that failing to comply with this Order may result in the imposition 

of sanctions, including the dismissal of Plaintiff’s case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 5/14/2018 

Case 3:16-cv-00762-JAH-BLM Document 32 Filed 05/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6