(PC) Johnson v. Nelson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL WAYNE JOHNSON, No. 2:20-cv-0967 WBS DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AMY NELSON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 18 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends that defendant was deliberately indifferent to 19 his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Presently before the court is 20 plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 42.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny 21 the motion to compel. 22 I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 23 Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking an order from the court instructing defendants to 24 participate in discovery. (ECF No. 42.) He states he mailed interrogatories to counsel for 25 defendants on October 18, 2021. When he did not receive a response within 45 days, he wrote a 26 letter requesting a response. He requests the court order defendant to produce responsive 27 documents. Plaintiff also requests the court instruct defendant to provide a response to his 28 request for production of documents. 1 Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 45.) Therein, 2 counsel for defendant states that they sent discovery responses to plaintiff on November 3, 2021. 3 However, they were returned marked undeliverable on November 16, 2021. (Id. at 2.) After 4 talking with plaintiff over the phone the following day, counsel re-issued the interrogatory 5 responses. Counsel received correspondence from plaintiff on December 9, 2021 indicating that 6 plaintiff had not received the interrogatory responses. Counsel re-served the responses. During a 7 December 16, 2021 telephone call, plaintiff confirmed that he received the interrogatory 8 responses. (Id. at 3.) 9 II. Legal Standards 10 Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery 11 regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 12 proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the 13 action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ 14 resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 15 expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of 16 discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 17 Parties may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce and 18 permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following 19 items in the responding party’s possession custody or control: any designated documents or 20 tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) (quotation marks omitted). 21 Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may 22 move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or 24 incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have 25 ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule 26 of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 27 Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). 28 //// 1 “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request 2 satisfied the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the party opposing discovery 3 has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, 4 explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 07cv200 JM (PCL), 2009 WL 5 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May, 14, 2009) (citations omitted). 6 Specifically, the party moving to compel bears the burden of informing the court (1) 7 which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are 8 disputed, (3) why the party believes the response is deficient, (4) why any objections are not 9 justified, and (5) why the information sought through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of 10 this action. McCoy v. Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv-1808-MJS (PC), 2016 WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 11 June 9, 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-5646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. 12 Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 13 III. Analysis 14 Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because he has not met his burden. Plaintiff is 15 required to state which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel. See Grabek v. 16 Dickinson, No. CIV S-0-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012) (moving 17 party is required to inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to 18 compel); see also E.D. Cal. Local Rule 250(c) (party seeking an order to compel discovery to 19 submit to the court the requests for production which are at issue). Plaintiff’s motion does not 20 specify which discovery requests are in dispute. Rather, it states that he seeks responses to both 21 interrogatories and requests for production. Thus, it is not clear which discovery requests are at 22 issue. 23 Moreover, it appears that the issue is now moot because plaintiff confirmed he received 24 defendants’ responses. (ECF No. 45 at 3.) Counsel for defendant avers that he has confirmed 25 through correspondence with plaintiff, that he received the responses. Thus, the motion should 26 also be denied as moot. 27 //// 28 //// 1 IV. Conclusion 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 42) 3 || is denied. 4 | Dated: January 24, 2022 5 6 7 BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil. Rights/R/john0967.mtc(P) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28