The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner at California Medical Facility (CMF), proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the original complaint filed November 7, 2006. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Nichols did not provide him with a replacement wheelchair for more than a month while plaintiff's wheelchair was being repaired and plaintiff was forced to walk which caused him to fall down and suffer injuries. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (Doc. #31), filed May 27, 2009. Defendant filed an opposition (Doc. #33), on July 13, 2009, and plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. #37), on August 14, 2009.
Motion to Compel Discovery
A party may bring a motion to compel discovery when another party has failed to respond or respond adequately to a discovery request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). A party may "obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense" but "for good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). As the moving party, plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and for each disputed response, why defendant's objections are not justified or why the response provided is deficient. Plaintiff seeks the following:
1. All documents sufficient to identify defendant's direct supervisor, during the periods giving rise to this matter.
2. All copies of 602 administrative appeals filed by plaintiff regarding this litigation.
3. All documents, notes, letters, memoranda and reports created in connection with the 602 appeal and ADA appeal to deny plaintiff a wheelchair for medical reasons.
6. A copy of defendant's curriculum vitae.
7. All names and case numbers of inmates who have sued defendant for whatever reason.
First Interrogatory Request
5. What are defendant's duties as an MTA?
9. When plaintiff appeared at the clinic in a defective wheelchair, did defendant refuse to give plaintiff a wheelchair that was fully operational and state that defendant would only ...