Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01931/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01931-10/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

ROBERT G. BAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01931-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

(ECF Nos. 39 and 40)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 7.) The action 

proceeds against Defendant Kitt on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference

claim. (ECF No. 11.)

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s June 22, 2015 motions to compel discovery (ECF 

Nos. 39 and 40.) Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff filed no response.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

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

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

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 45 Filed 07/28/15 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

2

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.

A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of 

the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) 

relating to the genuineness of any described documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). If a 

matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the 

answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. The answering party may assert lack 

of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party 

states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can 

readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).

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)).

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 45 Filed 07/28/15 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

3

B. Plaintiff’s motion

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to produce various documents that 

apparently were the subject of Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One. (ECF No. 39.) 

Plaintiff’s motion sets out the documents he purportedly requested. His second motion 

(ECF No. 40) objects to Defendant’s apparent assertion of privilege in response to some 

or all of the requests. 

Plaintiff states that he did not receive any of the requested documents from 

Defendant. Defendant states that he timely served objections and responses to the 

request. (ECF No. 44.) The actual requests, responses, and objections have not been 

provided to the Court.

C. Discussion

Plaintiff’s motions to compel are incomplete and, as such, inadequate. The 

motions do not include a complete copy of the discovery requests and a complete copy 

of Defendants’ responses or any explanation as to why the requested information is 

discoverable. The Court is unable to determine precisely what was requested, whether 

the information requested was discoverable, how Defendants responded, or the manner 

in which their responses are believed to be inadequate.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions to compel (ECF Nos. 39 and 40) are 

HEREBY DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew his requests prior to the 

expiration of the discovery deadline by providing a complete copy of the discovery 

requests and responses, and explaining the manner in which the responses are believed 

to be inadequate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 45 Filed 07/28/15 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

4

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 45 Filed 07/28/15 Page 4 of 4