(PC) Mills v. Jones ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS K. MILLS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01193-ADA-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 13 v. (Doc. Nos. 121, 127) 14 Z. JONES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendants to answer 18 interrogatories filed on July 29, 2022 and August 3, 2022, respectively. (Doc. Nos. 121, 127). 19 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on his First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 7). 20 Defendants filed an omnibus response addressing the motions subject to this order, as well as 21 other motions filed by Plaintiff, on September 14, 2022. (Doc. No. 137). The Court denies 22 Plaintiff’s motions. 23 In Plaintiff’s July 29 one-page motion, he requests the Court to order Defendants to 24 answer, “set one” and “set two” of his “interrogatory questions.” (Doc. No. 121 at 2). Plaintiff 25 explains that while Defendants objected to the questions, he believes they need to answer each 26 question. (Id.). In Plaintiff’s August 3 motion, he requests the Court to order Defendants to 27 answer interrogatories nos. 9-14. (Doc. No. 127). Plaintiff states he wrote a letter to counsel on 28 June 27, 2022 to comply with the Court’s local rule to meet and confer. (Id. at 3, ¶ 4). Plaintiff 1 attaches Defendants’ responses to interrogatories nos. 9-14 as an exhibits. (Id. at 8-10). 2 In opposition, Defendants raise three grounds: Plaintiff failed to meet and confer with 3 defense in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a); the interrogatories at issue were 4 served on Defendants before the Court issued a scheduling order regulating discovery therefore 5 Plaintiff’s discovery requests were premature; and Plaintiff failed to meet his burden showing 6 why Defendants’ objections to the interrogatories are not justified. (Doc. No. 137 at 9-11). 7 At the outset, the motions are procedurally deficient. In fact, Plaintiff’s July 29 motion 8 does not identify what was requested in “set one” and “set two” of his “interrogatory questions.” 9 Nonetheless, prisoner actions are exempt from the initial disclosure requirements set forth in Rule 10 26. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv). Here, the Court did not issue a discovery and scheduling 11 order until July 25, 2022. (Doc. No. 120). Further, a party must confer or attempt to confer with 12 the opposing party in an effort to resolve a discovery dispute before filing a motion to compel 13 discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); see also Local Rule 251(b). 14 Defendants state that the subject discovery was served on them on February 14, 2022, 15 February 17, 2022, February 27, 2022, and April 4, 2022, well before the issuance of the 16 discovery and scheduling order permitting discovery to proceed. (Doc. No. 137-2, ¶ 3). Indeed, 17 the Court had previously warned Plaintiff he was prematurely engaging in discovery earlier in 18 this case and directed that discovery should not commence until the court issued a discovery and 19 scheduling order. See April 1, 2022 Order (Doc. No. 83). District courts have “broad discretion 20 to manage discovery.” Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Tr., 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011). 21 Defendants in responding to Plaintiff’s propounded discovery generally objected on the grounds 22 that the Court had not issued a scheduling order, and thus the discovery was premature. (Doc. 23 No. 127 at 9). Further, while Plaintiff states he sent a letter to defense counsel in order to satisfy 24 the Court’s Local Rule to meet and confer, he filed the motions to compel before the date defense 25 counsel would have received the letter and/or had an opportunity to respond.1 This action falls far 26 short of the good faith meet and confer requirement. 27 Because the Court had not yet issued a discovery and scheduling order, Defendants were 28 1 Plaintiff sent the letter on July 27, 2022 and filed his motions to compel on July 29 and August 3, respectively. 1 | not under an obligation to respond to the premature discovery. Thus, the Court will deny the 2 | motions. If he has not already so done, Plaintiff may reserve his discovery on Defendants so they 3 || may respond as appropriate. The Court will not deem the prematurely served discovery as part of 4 | the 25 limited discovery requests under Rules 33, 36 or 34. 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 6 Plaintiff's motions to compel discovery (Doc. Nos. 121, 127) are DENIED. 7 Dated: _ October 24, 2022 lew □□ fareh Zacks 9 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28