Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00895/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00895-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sundaram
Defendant
Ricky Wyatt
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 Ricky Wyatt is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, filed September 14, 2016. 

Defendant filed an opposition on September 20, 2016. Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel on 

September 21, 2016. Because Plaintiff’s second motion to compel challenges the same discovery 

requests as the initial motion to which Defendant filed an opposition, the Court will not await a further 

opposition by Defendant in rendering a ruling on the motions to compel. 

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of 

confinement. As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would 

otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to 

RICKY WYATT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DR. SUNDARAM,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00895-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

TO COMPEL AND REQUESTS FOR 

REASONABLE EXPENSES

[ECF Nos. 30, 33]

Case 1:15-cv-00895-DAD-SAB Document 34 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 5
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

involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 27, Discovery and Scheduling Order, &4. Further, where 

otherwise discoverable information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or 

infringe upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in 

determining whether disclosure should occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. 

Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (privacy rights or interests implicit in broad purpose and 

language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of 

Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing assertion of privilege); Soto v. City of 

Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a constitutionally-based right of privacy 

that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB PC, 2012 

WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting inmate=s entitlement to inspect discoverable 

information may be accommodated in ways which mitigate institutional safety concerns); Robinson v. 

Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012) 

(issuing protective order regarding documents containing information which implicated the safety and 

security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. 

Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for protective order and for redaction of information asserted to 

risk jeopardizing safety and security of inmates or the institution if released); Womack v. Virga, No. 

CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (requiring 

defendants to submit withheld documents for in camera review or move for a protective order). 

However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The 

discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of 

discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 

1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “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.” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Case 1:15-cv-00895-DAD-SAB Document 34 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 5
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

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. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV 

S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at 

*3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); 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, 

2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4. 

II.

DISCUSSION

This action is proceeding against Defendant Dr. Sundaram for deliberate indifference to a 

serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

A. Motion To Compel

On or about July 20, 2016, Plaintiff served on Defendant several written discovery requests, 

including interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents. 

(Declaration of Joseph R. Wheeler (“Wheeler Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-6, ECF No. 32-1.) The discovery requests 

were all served by mail. (Wheeler Decl. at Exs. A, B & C.) Accordingly, Defendant’s deadline to 

respond to the requests was September 6, 2016.1 

Defendant served his responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, requests for admission, and 

requests for production on September 1, 2016. (Id. at Exs. D, E & F.) Thus, Defendant timely 

responded to all three of Plaintiff’s written discovery requests. (Wheeler Decl. ¶¶ 7-11.) 

In his second motion to compel, Plaintiff acknowledges the responses provided by Defendant, 

but fails to demonstrate how such responses and/or objections are improper. Plaintiff merely contends 

that Defendant failed to respond to any of his requests. Plaintiff has not addressed Defendant’s 

 

1

Pursuant to the discovery and scheduling order, the parties were provided forty-five days to respond to discovery 

requests. (ECF No. 27.) Forty-five days from July 20, 2016, was September 3, 2016. However, because the requests were 

served by mail, Defendant’s deadline to serve responses was extended an additional three days to September 6, 2016. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 

Case 1:15-cv-00895-DAD-SAB Document 34 Filed 10/06/16 Page 3 of 5
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

responses, much less demonstrated that any objections are improper and any information sought is 

relevant to the instant action. If Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and Plaintiff’s 

believes it is unjustified, it is Plaintiff’s burden in his motion to compel to demonstrate why the 

objections are not justified. See Glass v. Beer, No. 1:04-cv-05466-OWW-SMS, 2007 WL 913876, at 

*1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2007). Plaintiff must inform the Court specifically which discovery requests 

are at issue in his motion to compel, and for each disputed response, inform the Court why the 

information sought is relevant and why Defendant’s objections are not justified. See also Hallet v. 

Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, in the absence of any argument from 

Plaintiff, the Court cannot require Defendant to produce a further response and/or documents to 

Plaintiff’s discovery requests. 

B. Requests for Reasonable Expenses

Plaintiff seeks $6.35 and $7.40, respectively, in expenses incurred his filing the instant motions 

to compel. 

If a motion to compel discovery is granted, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be 

heard, require the party ... whose conduct necessitated the motion ... to pay the movant’s reasonable 

expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). 

Plaintiff’s pro se status does not insulate him from sanctions for failure to respond to discovery. See

Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1994) (a court cannot decline to impose sanctions 

simply because a plaintiff is proceeding pro se); Sanchez v. Rodriguez, 298 F.R.D. 460, 470 (C.D. 

Cal. 2014) (pro se status “does not excuse intentional noncompliance with discovery rules.”). 

Contrary to Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant timely responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, and 

there is no basis to award Plaintiff’s $10,000 in expenses. Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s motions to 

compel are denied in their entirety, Plaintiff’s requests for expenses incurred in filing the instant 

motions to compel are DENIED. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00895-DAD-SAB Document 34 Filed 10/06/16 Page 4 of 5
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

III.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel, filed September 14, 2016 and September 22, 2016, are 

DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s requests for reasonable expenses incurred in filing the motions to compel are 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00895-DAD-SAB Document 34 Filed 10/06/16 Page 5 of 5