UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 8, 2008
JAMES S. POBURSKY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
MADERA COUNTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY
(Docs. 106, 109)
Defendants County of Madera, Richard Ackerman, James Adkins, Brian Cunnings, Karl Hancock, Chris Swansen and Jacob Tallmon ("County defendants") filed the instant motions to compel plaintiffs to serve further responses to written discovery on July 17, 2008 and August 1, 2008. The motions were heard on September 5, 2008, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs are appearing pro se in this matter and appeared on their own behalf. Michael Linden appeared on behalf of the County defendants.
Plaintiffs filed this action on April 23, 2007. The allegations stem from an incident during which Plaintiffs were arrested and their children taken into custody of Child Protective Services. The complaint named numerous employees of the County of Madera, as well as employees of the Madera County Superior Court.
On December 21, 2007, the Court granted County Defendants' motion to dismiss in part, ordering the action to proceed on (1) the first cause of action, alleging that Defendants County of Madera, Deputy Brian Dee Cunnings, Sergeant Karl E. Hancock, Deputy Tallmon, Deputy J. Adkins, and Deputy Swanson violated Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights and conspired to violate Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights; (2) the third cause of action to the extent Plaintiff Wanda Pobursky alleges that Defendant Sergeant Ackerman and two Doe Nurses caused a serious risk to her health by refusing to allow her to use a breast pump; and (3) the fourth cause of action alleging that Defendant Doc's Towing and Transport, Defendant Clifton Ginn, Defendant Madera County, Defendant Deputy Jacob Tallmon, and Defendant Deputy J. Adkins violated Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights by stopping, searching and impounding Plaintiffs' van.
On July 7, 2008, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint. On July 17, 2008 and August 1, 2008 County defendants filed motions to compel plaintiffs to provide further responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents served on April 7, 2008. Defendants represent that counsel received a request for extension on May 12, 2008, the day responses were due. Defendants granted the extension but advised plaintiffs that all objections were waived based on their failure to provide timely responses. Plaintiffs served responses to the written discovery on June 2, 2008. Defendants contend plaintiffs' discovery responses fail to meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure in that they are not verified and are not in the proper format. Defendants request an order for sanctions and an order requiring plaintiffs to provide further responses to the following discovery:
Discovery served on James Pobursky:
Interrogatories 2-8, 10, 11 and 16-18 served by the County of Madera; Interrogatories 1 -15 served by Sergeant Karl Hancock;
Interrogatories 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 served by Deputy Brian Cunnings;
Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 served by Deputy Jacob Tallman; Interrogatories 4, 5 and 6 served by Deputies James Adkins and Chris Swanson; and Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 served by the County of Madera.
Discovery Served on Wanda Pobursky:
Interrogatories 1-11, 14, 16, 17 and 18 served by the County of Madera; Interrogatories 7 and 9 served by Karl Hancock;
Interrogatories 7, 8 and 9 served by Brian Cunnings; and Request for Production of Documents served by County of Madera
DISCUSSION AND ORDER
At the hearing on defendants' motion, the Court ordered the parties to further meet and confer regarding plaintiffs' responses to the discovery. As a result, the parties were able to resolve their disagreements regarding the discovery and plaintiffs' responses. The parties agreed that without the need for re-service, plaintiffs would further respond to the discovery and defendants would withdraw their request for sanctions.
Based on the parties' agreement, plaintiffs are
HEREBY ORDERED to provide further responses to the written discovery described above within 30 days of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.