Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01404/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01404-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Samuels
Defendant
Jesse Washington
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

Plaintiff Jesse Washington is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action is proceeding against Defendant R. Samuels for retaliation in violation of the First 

Amendment.

On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Defendant Samuels filed an 

opposition on May 15, 2015, and Plaintiff filed a reply on May 29, 2015. In accordance with the 

Court’s June 2, 2015, order, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s reply. (ECF No. 44.) 

On June 18, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel finding that Defendants by 

way of supplemental responses had adequately responded to Plaintiff’s discovery at issue in his 

motion to compel. (ECF No. 45.)

On June 29, 2015, and July 2, 2015, respectively, Plaintiff filed “objections” indicating that 

Defendant’s responses were not adequate and did not properly address his discovery requests.

JESSE WASHINGTON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. SAMUELS, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01404-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS

[ECF Nos. 46, 47]

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 54 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Pursuant to this Court’s order, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on August 

13, 2015. (ECF No. 52.) Defendant submits that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry there 

are no additional responsive documents aside from those previously produced by Defendant. (ECF 

No. 44, Ex. A.) 

Plaintiff is required to accept Defendant’s representation, and this Court cannot order a 

defendant to produce documents that do not exist. Furthermore, signed discovery responses are 

themselves certifications to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a 

reasonable inquiry, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(B) (quotation marks omitted), as are other signed filings 

presented to the Court, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(c). In addition, as 

counsel is aware, Defendant is required to supplement his discovery responses should he learn that his

responses were incomplete or incorrect, if the incomplete or incorrect information has not otherwise 

been made known to Plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to 

Defendant’s supplemental responses provide no basis to modify the prior order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 54 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 2