The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL IN PART (Document 65)
On November 30, 2009, Plaintiff, Timothy Crayton ("Plaintiff") filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendant. (Doc. 65). On December 4, 2009, Defendant Rochester Medical Corporation ("ROCM" or "Defendant") filed an opposition and supporting documents. (Docs. 82-86, 88). Plaintiff did not file a Reply. Upon a review of all of the pleadings, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART.
Plaintiff is a wheelchair paralytic who is an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison. The matter arises from Plaintiff's allegations that he was injured when he used an Ultraflex Silicone Self-Adhering Male External Catheter manufactured by Defendant. In an Amended Complaint filed on September 10, 2008, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for strict products liability, negligent products liability, fraudulent misrepresentations, and breach of implied warranty of fitness. (Doc. 34).
A scheduling conference was held on March 27, 2009. (Doc. 50). On March 30, 2009, the Court issued a scheduling order requiring that non-expert discovery be completed no later than September 1, 2009. (Doc. 55). Pursuant to Defendant's ex parte request, on September 14, 2009, the Court issued an order extending the non-expert discovery deadline for Defendant until September 20, 2009. (Docs. 59, 62). On September 23, 2009, the Court also extended Plaintiff's non-expert discovery deadline until September 25, 2009. (Doc. 61, 64).
III. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Plaintiff's motion seeks to compel discovery responses to Request for Production of Document Request Numbers 24, 29, which he requested on July 27, 2009, and Document Request No. 9 which he requested on September 25, 2009. He also is seeking sanctions in the form of an admission that Defendant's catheter product resulted in his injuries, as well as monetary sanctions in the amount of $300.00.
A. The Scope of Discovery
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and states in pertinent part:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, non privileged, that is relevant to any party's claim or defense, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Thus, discovery is appropriate of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. "The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections." Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D. N.J. 1990).
1. Request for Production Standards
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2) requires that a written response to a request for production either states that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, or states an objection to the request, including the reasons. A party is obligated to produce all specified relevant and non-privileged documents or other things which are in its ...