UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 7, 2009
OCHOA, WARDEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Peter C. Lewis U.S. Magistrate Judge United States District Court
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (Doc. 103.)
Plaintiff moved the Court for an order pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure compelling Defendant Mudra to answer more fully Interrogatory No. 4, written as follows: "Please state the name(s) of any and all Calipatria State prison official(s) who delegated you as the interviewer of plaintiff's grievance/Appeal Log No. CAL-A-08-00893." (Doc. 103-2, at 4.) Defendant Mudra initially answered the question as follows: "Defendant Mudra's responsibility to conduct any grievance/appeal interview can be delegated by any of the following: Captain, Warden, Associate Warden, Chief Deputy Warden, Appeals Coordinator." (Doc. 105, at 2.) Since filing the motion, Plaintiff has received a more detailed response to Interrogatory No. 4. (See Doc. 105, Exhibit C.) The pertinent part of Defendant Mudra's response is as follows: "the delegation of this responsibility is a process. In your case, the Warden, L. Small, and the Chief Deputy Warden, T. Ochoa, assigned the grievance to the Appeals Coordinator, D. Bell, who, in turn, assigned the grievance to the Associate Warden, G. Janda. Mr. Janda then assigned the grievance to Captain R. Madden, who, in turn, assigned it to Mr. Mudra." (Id.)
Because Defendant Mudra has provided a detailed response to Interrogatory No. 4, Plaintiff's motion to compel (doc. 103) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.