Welchen v. Bonta ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARY WAYNE WELCHEN, No. 2:16-cv-0185 TLN DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, KAMALA HARRIS, in her official 15 capacity as the California Attorney General, and SCOTT JONES, in his 16 official capacity as the Sacramento County Sheriff, 17 18 Defendants. 19 20 This action came before the undersigned on November 15, 2019, for hearing of plaintiff’s 21 motion to compel. (ECF No. 64.) Attorneys Phil Telfeyan and James Davy appeared 22 telephonically on behalf of the plaintiff. Attorney Jose Zelidon-Zepeda appeared telephonically 23 on behalf of defendant California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. 24 As stated at the November 15, 2019 hearing, plaintiff has been somewhat unclear as to 25 whether plaintiff is pursuing a facial challenge or an as-applied challenge in this action. See ECF 26 No. 55 at 7-8 & ECF No. 62 at 1. Regardless, plaintiff’s arguments found in the joint statement 27 and at the November 15, 2019 hearing failed to address each discovery request with specificity. 28 In this regard, instead of addressing why each request at issue was relevant, narrowly tailored, not 1 | overly burdensome, etc., plaintiff’s argument is essentially that plaintiff “believes that Defendant 2 | Becerra must provide at least some discovery in response to relevant” discovery requests. (ECF 3 | No. 68 at 7.) 4 Plaintiff's vague arguments fails to provide the undersigned with the necessary 5 | information to find that defendant should respond to the specific discovery requests at issue. 6 | Moreover, as defendant noted, plaintiff failed to address defendant’s objections to plaintiffs 7 | discovery requests as “vague and overbroad,” and privileged. (Id. at 7.) See generally 8 | Valenzuela v. City of Calexico, No. 14-cv-481 BAS PCL, 2015 WL 926149, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 9 | Mar. 4, 2015) (“The moving party carries the burden of informing the court: (1) which discovery 10 || requests are the subject of his motion to compel; (2) which of the defendants’ responses are 11 || disputed; (3) why the responses are deficient; (4) the reasons defendants’ objections are without 12 || merit; and (5) the relevance of the requested information to the prosecution of his action.’’); 13 | Howard v. Gradtillo, No. 1:05-cv-0906 AWI GBC (PC), 2012 WL 1299329, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 14 | 13, 2012) (‘If Defendants object to one of Plaintiff’s discovery requests, it is Plaintiff’s burden on 15 | his motion to compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. In general, Plaintiff must 16 | inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each 17 | disputed response, inform the Court why the information sought is relevant under Rule 26(b)(1) 18 || and why Defendants’ objections are not justified.”’); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-5646 AWI 19 | SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008) (same). 20 Accordingly, upon consideration of the arguments on file and those made at the hearing, 21 | and for the reasons set forth on the record at that hearing and above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 22 | that plaintiff's October 11, 2019 motion to compel (ECF No. 64) is denied without prejudice to 23 || renewal. 24 | Dated: November 15, 2019 25 26 27 | DLB:6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DB\orders\orders.civil\welchen0185.o0ah.111519