UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 25, 2010
WILLIE TYRONE COOPER, PLAINTIFF,
JEANNE WOODFORD, DIRECTOR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REASONABLE EXPENSES (Doc. 47)
Plaintiff Willie Tyrone Cooper, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 8, 2007. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed September 2, 2008, against Defendants Morales, Alvarez, and Garza for violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On December 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his requests for the production of documents, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv), and for reasonable expenses in making the motion, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Defendants filed an opposition on December 12, 2009, and Plaintiff filed a reply on January 12, 2010.
"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense. . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). For document production requests, responding parties must produce documents which are in their "possession, custody or control."
If Defendants object to one of Plaintiff's discovery requests, it is Plaintiff's burden on his motion to compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. In general, Plaintiff must inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the Court why the information sought is relevant and why Defendants' objections are not justified.
In this instance, Plaintiff did not submit a copy of his discovery requests or Defendants' responses with his motion to compel, and did not explain why the information sought is relevant and why Defendants' objections lack merit. As a result, Plaintiff did not meet his burden as the party moving to compel further responses.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed December 11, 2009, is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice, and Plaintiff's request for reasonable expenses in making his motion to compel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.