(PC) Hunt v. Lewis ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYRONE HUNT, No. 2:18-cv-2130 MCE AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 C.J. LEWIS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel, which 19 defendant opposes. ECF Nos. 62, 63. 20 Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to all twenty-four of his requests for 21 production. ECF No. 62. However, he fails to specify how each response or objection is 22 deficient as to each request and instead makes general assertions that each type of objection is 23 deficient.1 Id. at 3-7. 24 The Court does not hold prisoners proceeding pro se to the same standards that it holds attorneys. However, at a minimum, as the 25 moving party plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court of which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and, 26 27 1 Although plaintiff initially singles out Requests for Production 11, 12, 16, and 23 by identifying how the requests were narrowed, he does not make any specific challenges to the adequacy of the 28 responses or appropriateness of the objections. ECF No. 62 at 1-3. ] for each disputed response, why defendant’s objection is not justified. 2 3 || Waterbury v. Scribner, No. 1:05-cv-0764 OWW DLB PC, 2008 WL 2018432, at *1, 2008 U.S. 4 || Dist. LEXIS 53142, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2008). 5 Moreover, a brief review of the responses provided by plaintiff and defendant shows that 6 || defendant produced documents in response to nearly all of plaintiff's requests despite any 7 || objections, except for the few requests to which defendant responded that no responsive g || documents exist or could be located or that responsive documents were not in defendant’s 9 || possession, custody, or control. ECF No. 62 at 25-45; ECF No. 63-1 at 32-102. Plaintiff 10 || provides no explanation as to why the documents produced fail to satisfy his requests. Without 11 | further elaboration from plaintiff as to why defendant’s responses are deficient or their objections 12 || are not justified, he has failed to meet his burden in bringing a motion to compel and the court is 13 || unable to evaluate the sufficiency of defendant’s responses or the appropriateness of their 14 || objections. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No.62) 16 || is DENIED. 17 | DATED: July 28, 2022 ' ~ Httven— 18 ALLISON CLAIRE 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28