Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rouser v. Tilton

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 28, 2009

WILLIAM ROUSER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES E. TILTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

On December 31, 2008, plaintiff filed a request for sanctions. In this motion, plaintiff alleges that defendants were untruthful in responses to interrogatories. For example, plaintiff alleges that defendants' claim that they do not know the meaning of "side room" and "there to watch" is false. Plaintiff also objects that in a response to a request for admissions, defendant Hannigan falsely stated that he did not know what the word altar means. As relief, plaintiff seeks an order directing defendants to respond to his discovery requests. Based on this request, the court construes plaintiff's motion for sanctions as a motion to compel.

Attached to the motion are approximately 72 pages of discovery responses. In his motion, plaintiff does not identify which specific responses he is objecting to. The court will not comb through these 72 pages of discovery responses for plaintiff in order to determine which responses he may be objecting to. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is denied because it is not well supported.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's December 31, 2008, request for sanctions (no. 61), construed as a motion to compel, is denied.

20090128

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.