Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00553/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00553-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lavell Frierson
Plaintiff
U. Ojeda
Defendant

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

LAVELL FRIERSON,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

OJEDA,

 Defendant.

1:14-cv-00553-DAD-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

(ECF No. 33.)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 39.)

ORDER FOR DEFENDANT TO SERVE 

RESPONSES TO SIX INTERROGATORIES 

NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 28, 2016 

USING FEDERAL EXPRESS, AND TO 

BRING A COPY OF THE RESPONSES TO 

THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON 

NOVEMBER 10, 2016

Settlement Conference

November 10, 2016 at 1:00 p.m.

Before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman

U.S. District Court, Courtroom 25, Sacramento, CA

I. BACKGROUND

Lavell Frierson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds with Plaintiff’s 

initial Complaint, filed on April 18, 2014, against defendant Correctional Officer U. Ojeda

(“Defendant”) on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim arising out of the placement of a 

Case 1:14-cv-00553-DAD-GSA Document 51 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 7
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

cellmate in Plaintiff’s cell. This case is scheduled for a settlement conference on November 10, 

2016 at 1:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman at the United States District 

Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom 25. (ECF No. 34.)

On December 2, 2015, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting out 

case deadlines, including deadlines of August 2, 2016 for completion of discovery and October 

11, 2016 for the filing of dispositive motions. (ECF No. 25.) The discovery deadline has now 

expired. On July 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a forty-five-day extension of the 

discovery deadline. (ECF No. 33.) On August 17, 2016, Defendant filed an opposition to the 

motion. (ECF No. 36.) On August 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 43.) The motion 

is now ready for ruling. Local Rule 230(l).

On August 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Responses to Set Two 

Interrogatories, which the Court construes as a motion to compel discovery responses. (ECF 

No. 39.) On September 1, 2016, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 45.) 

On September 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 47.) The motion is now ready for 

ruling. Local Rule 230(l).

Now before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to extend discovery and to compel 

discovery responses.

II. MOTION TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 

modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the 

scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not 

grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 

(9th Cir. 2002). A party may obtain relief from the Court=s deadline date for discovery by 

demonstrating good cause for allowing further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

Case 1:14-cv-00553-DAD-GSA Document 51 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 7
3

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

Plaintiff requests a forty-five-day extension of the Court’s August 2, 2016 deadline to 

complete discovery. Plaintiff asserts that he is not a jailhouse lawyer and is only entitled to 5 

1/2 to 6 hours a week in the law library, during which time he competes with other inmates for

resources such as the computer and typewriter. Plaintiff requests additional time to file a 

motion to compel discovery against Defendant Ojeda, specifically to compel responses to 

interrogatories, requests for admission, and production of documents, set one. 

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for an 

extension of the discovery deadline. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not explained how any 

of Defendant’s responses were improper or insufficient; has not demonstrated that he was 

diligent in conducting discovery; and has not demonstrated that the discovery requests that 

would be the subject of any motion to compel were appropriate and served in a timely manner.

Discussion

The Court finds that Plaintiff was unable to complete discovery with respect to 

interrogatories before the Court’s August 2, 2016 deadline expired, even with due diligence. 

On July 6, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to propound interrogatories exceeding the 

statutory limit of 25 interrogatories under Rule 33(a)(1). (ECF No. 31.) Defendants were 

granted 30 days in which to respond to the additional interrogatories. (Id.) On August 3, 2016, 

Defendant served Plaintiff with timely responses to the interrogatories. However, by then 

Plaintiff had lost his ability to bring a timely motion to compel further responses to the 

interrogatories as the discovery deadline had expired. Thus, Plaintiff was unable to file a 

motion to compel, through no fault of his own. On August 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

compel further responses to interrogatories, which is now pending. (ECF No. 39.) Based on 

the foregoing, and good cause showing, Plaintiff’s August 19, 2016 motion to compel 

responses to interrogatories shall be deemed timely filed. 

Plaintiff also requests additional time to bring a motion to compel further responses to 

his request for production of documents, set one. This request is moot, because on July 27, 

2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his request for production of 

documents, set one, and the motion was partially granted on August 26, 2016. (ECF Nos. 32, 

Case 1:14-cv-00553-DAD-GSA Document 51 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 7
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

42.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to file a motion to compel responses to his 

motion for production of documents, set one, shall be denied.

Plaintiff also requests additional time to bring a motion to compel responses to his 

request for admissions. Plaintiff asserts that he has not received any response to his request for 

admissions from Defendant. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for an extension of time to file 

a motion to compel admissions. Plaintiff asserts that he was only allowed 5 1/2 to 6 hours per 

week at the law library, but this does not demonstrate that Plaintiff used due diligence but was 

still unable to file his motion to compel admissions before the August 2, 2016 discovery 

deadline. Discovery was open in this case for eight months and Plaintiff has not explained why 

he could not file his motion to compel admissions before the deadline expired. Therefore, the 

Court shall deny Plaintiff an extension of time to file a motion to compel admissions.

III. MOTION TO COMPEL

A. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b) and 37(a)

Under Rule 26(b), “Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is 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 the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be 

discoverable.”

Pursuant to Rule 37(a), a party propounding discovery may seek an order compelling 

disclosure when an opposing party has failed to respond or has provided evasive or incomplete 

responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response 

must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The 

moving party bears the burden of demonstrating “actual and substantial prejudice” from the 

denial of discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations 

omitted.).

Case 1:14-cv-00553-DAD-GSA Document 51 Filed 10/13/16 Page 4 of 7
5

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

B. Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff argues that Defendant responded to the wrong set of interrogatories when he 

responded to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set Two. Plaintiff explains that there are two different 

versions of his Interrogatories, Set Two, and Defendant responded to the first version instead of 

the second version. Now, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to respond to the second version 

of his Interrogatories, Set Two, within 7 days.

 Plaintiff asserts as follows. On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff served Defendant with 

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set Two. Defendant objected to the Interrogatories because Plaintiff 

exceeded the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. On June 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend and propound an 

additional twenty-four interrogatories on Defendant. Defendant opposed the motion on June 

17, 2016, and on June 27, 2016, the court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s motion and 

ordering Defendant to respond to the second set of 24 interrogatories within thirty days. 

Plaintiff argues that the order referred to the set of 24 interrogatories he attached to his motion 

when making the decision to grant Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant 

responded to a set of 25 interrogatories, not the 24 interrogatories the court ordered Defendant 

to respond to.

In opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Defendant first argues that the motion is 

untimely because it was filed after the August 2, 2016 discovery deadline. Defendant next

argues that he should not be required to respond to more interrogatories, because Defendant 

timely responded to the only two sets of interrogatories that have been served on him in this 

action: (1) the first set of 27 interrogatories served on Defendant on February 16, 2016, and (2) 

the second set of interrogatories served on Defendant on April 14, 2016. Defendant asserts that 

Plaintiff’s motion of June 3, 2016 specifically requested that he be permitted leave to propound 

the second set of interrogatories that had been served on April 14, 2016. (ECF No. 31.) 

Defendant asserts that when the court granted Plaintiff’s motion on July 6, 2016, the court 

specifically referred to the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, as well as the interrogatories 

attached to it, and these interrogatories were the interrogatories that had been served on 

Case 1:14-cv-00553-DAD-GSA Document 51 Filed 10/13/16 Page 5 of 7
6

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

Defendant on April 14, 2016. (Id.) Defendant also asserts that it appears the court assumed, as 

did Defendant, that the set of interrogatories attached to Plaintiff’s motion was, in fact, the 

same set that had been served on Defendant. On August 3, 2016, Defendant responded to 

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set Two, that were served on April 14, 2016. (See Wheeler Decl., 

¶9.) 

C. Discussion

First, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on August 19, 2016, to be 

timely. (See page 3 of this order.)

Next, the Court finds that Court’s order of July 6, 2016 was ambiguous and could have 

been reasonably interpreted by the parties in different ways. Plaintiff reasonably interpreted the 

order to require Defendant to respond to the amended version of Plaintiff’s Second Set of 

Interrogatories, whereas Defendant reasonably interpreted the order to require him to respond 

to the initial version of Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories served upon Defendant on 

April 14, 2016. 

Plaintiff’s motion shall be granted in part. Defendant shall be required to respond only 

to the six interrogatories that Plaintiff actually amended, Numbers 30, 39, 40, 44, 45, and 47, as 

follow:

Interrogatory No. 30. Why did you knowingly ignore plaintiff single cell status mental 

health chrono pending assessment and intervention by mental 

health staff.

Interrogatory No. 39. Inmates who stab his celly and or have in cell violence is one of 

the concern in considering a inmate for single cell status.

Interrogatory No. 40. Is that why you told plaintiff he have to stab up his celly in order 

to earn single cell status.

Interrogatory No. 44. Why did you block the cell doorway in a hostile provocative 

stance in not allowing plaintiff out of the cell to speak with a 

sergeant.

Interrogatory No. 45. Why was it necessary to raise your can of pepper spray to 

plaintiff face to threaten and force him to the back of the cell.

Interrogatory No. 47. After you raised your pepper spray weapon to plaintiff face 

threaten to spray as he jumped back and hit his head on the locker 

in the cell as he retreated to the back of the cell did you check 

and see if he needed any medical attention.

Case 1:14-cv-00553-DAD-GSA Document 51 Filed 10/13/16 Page 6 of 7
7

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

Defendant is required to respond to these six interrogatories in good faith no later than 

October 28, 2016, using Federal Express. Plaintiff shall also bring a copy of his responses to 

the Settlement Conference on November 10, 2016. Boilerplate objections are disfavored, and 

Defendant should state any objections in plain language that a pro se party will likely 

understand. Plaintiff must accept Defendant’s responses as given and shall not be granted 

leave to bring another motion to compel. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to extend discovery, filed on July 28, 2016, is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories, filed on August 19, 

2016, is GRANTED IN PART;

3. No later than October 28, 2016, Defendant shall serve responses to Plaintiff’s 

Interrogatories Nos. 30, 39, 40, 44, 45, and 47, pursuant to this order, using 

Federal Express shipping service. Defendants shall also bring a copy of the 

responses to the settlement conference on November 10, 2016; and

4. No further motions to compel are permitted in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2016 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00553-DAD-GSA Document 51 Filed 10/13/16 Page 7 of 7