(PC) Lewis v. Velasquez-Miranda ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 DARONTA TYRONE LEWIS, No. 2:21-cv-0932-JAM-EFB P 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 M. VELASQUEZ-MIRANDA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 29, 2022, the court granted plaintiff a final opportunity to file a motion 20 to compel further discovery responses. ECF No. 73. On May 31, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to 21 compel. ECF No. 75. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied. 22 In the order affording plaintiff extra time to file a motion to compel, the court cautioned as 23 follows: 24 As the moving party, plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court which 25 discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, which of defendants’ responses are disputed, why he believes defendants’ responses are deficient, why 26 defendants’ objections are not justified, and why the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. See, e.g., Brooks v. 27 Alameida, No. CIV S-03-2343 JAM EFB P, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9568, 2009 WL 331358, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) (“Without knowing which responses 28 1 plaintiff seeks to compel or on what grounds, the court cannot grant plaintiff's motion.”); Ellis v. Cambra, No. CIV 02-05646-A WI-SMS PC, 2008 U.S. Dist. 2 LEXIS 109050, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008) (“Plaintiff must 3 inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the court why the information sought is 4 relevant and why Defendant’s objections are not justified.”). Stating generally that one of defendants’ objections lacks merit is not sufficient. Plaintiff will be granted 5 a final opportunity to file a motion to compel that identifies and reproduces for the 6 court the responses he deems deficient. 7 8 | ECF No. 73 at 3. Plaintiff fails to meet his burden through the instant motion to compel 9 || because, despite clear instructions, he has not informed the court which discovery requests 10 || are the subject of his motion, which of defendants’ responses are disputed, why he 11 || believes defendants’ responses are deficient, or why defendants’ objections are not 12 || justified. Instead, throughout his 214-page filing, plaintiff makes various long-winded 13 || arguments as to why certain categories of information, not linked to specific discovery 14 || requests or responses (1.e., peace officer reports, lock-up orders, excessive force videos, 15 || performance records, grievances, insurance policies, and personnel records (ECF No. 75 16 || at 7-29)), are “relevant” to this action. The motion does not include defendants’ responses 17 || to plaintiff's requests for production but does include defendants’ responses to plaintiff's 18 || interrogatories and requests for admissions. The categories of information discussed by 19 | plaintiff do not logically line up with or otherwise correspond to the discovery requests or 20 || responses included with the motion. Moreover, the reproduced responses raise numerous 21 || objections in addition to relevancy. As the court previously warned, “[s]tating generally 22 || that one of defendants’ objections lacks merit is not sufficient.” ECF No. 73 at 4. 23 || Plaintiff's generalized contention that various categories of information are relevant to his 24 || case is not a sufficient basis upon which to grant plaintiff's motion to compel. 25 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 75) is 26 | DENIED. 27 | Dated: June 13, 2022. □□ PDEA 28 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE