Silva v. Sanders ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 RAMON SAUL SILVA, JR, CASE NO. 2:21-CV-472-RAJ-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 v. COMPEL 13 BENJAMIN SANDERS, 14 Defendant. 15 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate 16 Judge David W. Christel. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Ramon Saul Silva, Jr.’s Motion 17 to Compel Disclosure. Dkt. 24. After considering the relevant record, the Motion to Compel is 18 denied. 19 On November 6, 2021, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed the Motion to Compel, 20 wherein he requests the Court order Defendant Benjamin Sanders to provide: 21 1. All medical kites, responses to medical kites, and medical grievances regarding Plaintiff’s requests for glasses from 2018 through the present; 22 2. Requests for Admission that are signed under oath by Defendant Sanders; and 3. Answers to Requests for Admission 2, 9-11, and 14-16. 23 Dkt. 24. 24 1 A party may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged information that is relevant to 2 any claim or defense in his or her case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Once the party seeking discovery 3 has established the request meets this relevancy requirement, “the party opposing discovery has the 4 burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining 5 or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009). 6 When a party believes the responses to his discovery requests are incomplete, or contain 7 unfounded objections, he may move the court for an order compelling disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 37. The movant must show he conferred, or made a good faith effort to confer, with the party 9 opposing disclosure before seeking court intervention. Id. 10 Defendant argues the Motion to Compel should be denied because (1) the kites and 11 grievances have been produced; (2) attorneys may sign requests for admission; and (3) Defendant’s 12 response to Requests for Admission 2, 9-11, and 14-16 were proper. Dkt. 27. 13 First, Plaintiff states Defendant failed to submit all the discovery related to his kites and 14 medical grievances. Dkt. 24. Plaintiff contends he was able to obtain additional kites and medical 15 grievances from a public records request. Id. Defendant’s counsel believes Plaintiff has been 16 provided with all response records known to Defendant. Dkt. 28, Froh Dec. Plaintiff has not 17 provided sufficient evidence for this Court to find Defendant has failed to provide all documents 18 within his possession. Further, it appears Plaintiff has other means for obtaining the documents he 19 now requests from Defendant. As there is evidence showing Plaintiff received the all the requested 20 evidence within Defendant’s possession and has other means for obtaining the information he is 21 requesting, the Court declines to compel Defendant to produce additional, unspecified, kites and 22 medical grievances. However, if Defendant discovers additional kites or grievances, Defendant is 23 directed to provide those to Plaintiff at that time. 24 1 Second, Plaintiff states requests the Court compel Defendant to provide responses to the 2 Requests for Admission that are signed under oath. Dkt. 24. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 36(a)(3), a written answer or objection to a request for admission must be “signed by the party or 4 its attorney.” Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission were signed by 5 Defendant’s attorney. See Dkt. 28 at 11-18. Rule 36 allows for the responses to be signed by the 6 attorney. The Court, therefore, finds Plaintiff’s objection to the responses to his Requests for 7 Admission to be without merit. The Court will not order Defendant to sign, under oath, his 8 responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission. 9 Finally, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling answers to Requests for Admission 2, 9-11, and 10 14-16. Dkt. 24. The Court finds the parties have not met and conferred regarding these specific 11 Requests for Admission. Plaintiff provided a generalized statement saying he met and conferred 12 with Defendant’s counsel on November 4, 2021 by telephone. Dkt. 25 at 2. Defendant’s counsel 13 states that, to her recollection, Plaintiff did not raise specific concerns about the responses made 14 to Requests for Admission 2, 9-11, or 14-16. Dkt. 28, Froh Dec., ¶ 7. As Plaintiff has not 15 provided specific evidence showing the parties met and conferred regarding Defendant’s 16 responses to Requests for Admission 2, 9-11, or 14-16, the request for relief is denied. 17 The Court, however, has reviewed Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for 18 Admission 2, 9-11, and 14-16. See Dkt. 28 at 11-18. Plaintiff contends Defendant changed the 19 Requests for Admission to blur or confuse the issues. Dkt. 24. Plaintiff has not shown, nor does the 20 Court find, the responses are inadequate. Therefore, had the parties met and conferred, the Court 21 would still decline to order Defendant to provide different responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for 22 Admission 2, 9-11, and 14-16. 23 24 1 In conclusion, the Court declines to compel Defendant to provide: (1) all medical kites, 2 responses to medical kites, and medical grievances regarding Plaintiff’s requests for glasses from 3 2018 through the present; (2) responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission that are signed under 4 oath by Defendant; and (3) different responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission 2, 9-11, and 5 14-16. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 24) is denied. 6 Dated this 13th day of December, 2021. 7 A 8 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24