Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01896/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01896-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASIMI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN M. VEAL, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO WITHDRAW DISCOVERY REQUESTS,

RE-OPEN DISCOVERY, AND SERVE NEW

DISCOVERY REQUESTS, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS, AS INSTRUCTED BY THIS ORDER

(Doc. 62.)

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jasimi Jermaine Calloway (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff commenced this action on December 10,

2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Third Amended Complaint filed on October 5,

2009, on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims, against defendant Dr. Wang for deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, and against defendants C/O Hayward and C/O Oaks

for use of excessive force. (Doc. 20.) 1

 On April 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw his previous discovery requests,

reopen discovery, and serve new discovery requests. (Doc. 62.) On May 8, 2012, Defendants filed

an opposition. (Doc. 63.) Plaintiff did not file a reply. Plaintiff’s motion is now before the Court.

On March 17, 2011, the Court dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action, under Rule 18(a)

1

or for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 24.)

1

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 74 Filed 09/27/12 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

II. BACKGROUND

On September 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to respond to his thirtyeight requests for admissions and eight interrogatories, and to produce documents including

personnel files and psychiatric records. (Doc. 42.) In their opposition filed on September 20, 2011,

Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s requests for admissions were vague, overbroad, and mostly

undecipherable; contained no information with regard to time, persons, or place; and required the

unidentified respondent to assume information in order to respond. (Doc. 44.) Defendants also

argued that Plaintiff had improperly combined interrogatories and requests for production of

documents, and that the requests were not directed to individual defendants. Id. 

Defendants indicated to Plaintiff that they would not object to Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the

requests for admissions and re-submission of separate, clearly defined requests for admissions made

in compliance with Rule 36(a). Id., Exh. D at 2:17-23. Defendants also suggested that Plaintiff

withdraw his interrogatories, prepare them pursuant to the Rules, and re-serve them on Defendants. 

Id., Exh. E, Doc. 44-2 at 20:20-22. Defendants stated that they would not count the Interrogatories

against Plaintiff’s limit of 25 interrogatories. Id. at 20:23-25. Defendants also suggested to Plaintiff

that he could withdraw his requests for production of documents and re-submit separate, clearly

defined document requests. Id. at 2:13-16. 

On April 4, 2012, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel and

requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file a motion to withdraw his discovery request, re-open discovery,

and serve new discovery requests, or (2) file written notice that he does not wish to serve new

discovery requests.

III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

In response to the Court’s order of April 4, 2012, Plaintiff brings a motion to withdraw his

discovery requests, re-open discovery, and serve new discovery requests on defendants Oaks,

Hayward, and Wang, pursuant to Rules 33, 34, and 36. 

In opposition, Defendants refer to “discovery requests attached” which are “completely

objectionable.” Opp’n, Doc. 63 at 3:9-10. Defendants argue that allowing Plaintiff to serve these

improper requests will only delay this litigation further, as defendants will be forced to object, again,

2

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 74 Filed 09/27/12 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

and likely file a motion for protective order. Defendants maintain that Plaintiff has not shown a

compelling need for the personnel files, medical records, and psychiatric records he requests.

IV. DISCUSSION

The Court has not seen the proposed discovery requests described by Defendants. Plaintiff

did not submit any proposed requests for the Court’s review, and Defendants did not submit copies

of the requests with their opposition. Plaintiff has not replied to Defendants’ opposition to explain

his intent. Thus, the Court does not have sufficient information to make a ruling. Therefore,

Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion within thirty days.

If Plaintiff chooses to renew the motion, he must submit his proposed discoveryrequests with

the motion to the Court for review. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must complywith the Federal Rules 

when preparing his discovery requests. Under Rule 26, Plaintiff may only “obtain discovery

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(a) (emphasis added). Evidence is relevant only if (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more

or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and (b) the fact is of consequence in

determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Discovery in this case must be relevant to Plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force and inadequate medical care. Plaintiff is also

cautioned that his discovery requests must be legible, concise, and clearly understandable, and each

request must be directed to a specific defendant. Each interrogatory should contain only one

question, and Plaintiff should onlyrequest specific, identifiable documentslimited in time and scope. 

It must be apparent to the Court that Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to follow these guidelines,

or his motion will not be granted. The Clerk shall be directed to send Plaintiff copies of Rules 26,

33, 34, and 36 for his review.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his discovery requests, re-open discovery, and serve

new discovery requests, filed on April 25, 2012, is DENIED, without prejudice to

renewal of the motion within thirty days from the date of service of this order, as

instructed by this order; and

3

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 74 Filed 09/27/12 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

2. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff copies of Rules 26, 33, 34, and 36 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 27, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 74 Filed 09/27/12 Page 4 of 4