(PC) Dixson v. Haile ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEMETROIS T. DIXSON, No. 2:20-cv-00998-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BETHLEHEM ASHEME HAILE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court are plaintiff’s 19 motions to compel discovery from defendants (ECF Nos. 36-37) as well as plaintiff’s motion for 20 an extension of time to file a motion to compel (ECF No. 39). For the reasons explained below, 21 the court will deny plaintiff’s motions, but sua sponte grant him an extension of time to file an 22 opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 23 I. Procedural History 24 On May 7, 2021, the court entered a discovery and scheduling order governing this case. 25 ECF No. 24. By subsequent order dated September 17, 2021, the court granted plaintiff’s 26 motions to extend the discovery deadlines. ECF No. 32. The discovery cut-off date was 27 extended to December 6, 2021 and the pretrial motions deadline was reset to February 28, 2022. 28 ECF No. 32. 1 II. Motions to Compel 2 Plaintiff filed his first motion to compel on December 6, 2021 using the prison mailbox 3 rule. ECF No. 36. Thus, it was timely filed. According to the motion, defendants have 4 completely failed to respond to plaintiff’s interrogatories, requests for production of documents, 5 and requests for admissions that were propounded on September 24, 2021; October 5, 2021; and, 6 November 10, 2021, respectively. ECF No. 36. 7 Plaintiff’s second motion to compel was received in the Clerk’s Office on December 27, 8 2021 although it is dated December 6, 2021, just like his first motion. ECF No. 37. The court 9 has reviewed this motion and it appears entirely duplicative of the first. For this reason, the court 10 will not separately address this motion. 11 Defendants filed an opposition to the motions to compel indicating that they have 12 responded to all of plaintiff’s discovery requests. ECF No. 38. Defendants attached their 13 interrogatory responses which were served on December 1, 2021; their responses to the requests 14 for production of documents, served on November 19, 2021; and, their responses to the requests 15 for admissions which were served on December 23, 2021. ECF No. 38. 16 Rather than file a reply to defendants’ opposition, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension 17 of time to file an additional motion to compel. ECF No. 39. The motion focuses on 18 circumstances inside plaintiff’s prison, but it does not explain why a third motion to compel is 19 necessary in this case. ECF No. 39. 20 III. Legal Standards 21 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that 22 is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering 23 the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative 24 access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving 25 the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 26 benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The court may limit discovery if it is “unreasonably 27 cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, 28 less burdensome, or less expensive;” or if the party who seeks discovery “has had ample 1 | opportunity to obtain the information by discovery;” or if “the proposed discovery is outside the 2 || scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). In a motion to compel, the 3 || moving party bears the burden of showing why the other party's responses are inadequate or their 4 | objections unjustified. See Williams v. Cate, 2011 WL 6217378 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec.14, 2011), 5 || citing Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL 860523 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar.27, 2008). 6 IV. Analysis 7 The court will deny plaintiff's motions to compel as he has not demonstrated that 8 | defendants’ responses are inadequate. See Williams, 2011 WL 6217378 at *1 (‘Plaintiff bears 9 || the burden of informing the Court ... for each disputed response, why Defendant's objection is not 10 || justified... Plaintiff may not simply assert that he has served discovery responses, that he is 11 | dissatisfied, and that he wants an order compelling further responses.”) (citation omitted). Here, 12 | plaintiff's assertion that defendants completely failed to respond to all of his discovery requests is 13 || not supported by the record. For this reason, the motions are denied. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff's motions to compel (ECF Nos. 36-37) are denied. 16 2. Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to file a third motion to compel (ECF No. 17 || 39) is denied for lack of good cause shown. 18 3. The court sua sponte grants plaintiff an extension of time to file an opposition to 19 || defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this 20 | order to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. The failure to 21 || file an opposition will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. 22 | R. Civ. P. 41(b). 23 | Dated: March 10, 2022 □□ / dp ai CAROLYNK. DELANEY 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 || 12/dixs0998.p.m2compel.docx 28