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.

Lamon v. Tilton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 29, 2010

BARRY LOUIS LAMON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN TILTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION

(Doc. 96)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT

(Doc. 102)

Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's third amended complaint, filed December 18, 2008, against Defendants Luna, Price, Wilber, Vikjord, Aspieda, Magvass, Vanzant, Hamilton, Cortez, Frescura, Elize, Alvarez, and Hernandez for violation of the First and Eighth Amendments, and for violation of section 52.1 of the California Civil Code. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for an order of protection, filed February 8, 2010. Defendants filed an opposition to his motion on February 24, 2010. Also pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to compel, filed March 11, 2010, requesting production of documents. The Court addresses each motion below.

I. Plaintiff's Motion For Order of Protection

Plaintiff contends that Defendants are harassing Plaintiff in their discovery requests. Plaintiff contends that on January 21, 2010, Plaintiff received 29 separate discovery requests from Defendants' counsel, consisting of requests for production of documents, requests for admission, and interrogatories for each of the thirteen Defendants. Plaintiff contends that these requests are more than 95% identical and require Plaintiff to respond to more than 155 pages of redundant requests. Plaintiff does not have access to a word processor and would thus have to respond to all of these requests by hand. Plaintiff requests a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that he should only have to submit a single set of responses to each discovery request.

Defendants contend that each Defendant is only propounding 7 interrogatories, 7 requests for production, and 7 requests for admission. Defendants contend that while most of these requests are similar, each is specific to the Defendant. Defendants contend that the information sought is not privileged, relevant to the subject matter of the case, and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also contend that the requests are within the allowable limit as provided by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33, 34, and 36.

Plaintiff's request for an order of protection is denied. While handwriting a response to each request may be time-consuming, handwriting the answer to each request is not good cause for a protective order. Defendants are entitled to propound these discovery requests under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.*fn1

Plaintiff in a separate motion indicated that he would be in Sacramento for trial in the case of Barry Lamon v. Lytle, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00423-AK (E.D. Cal.). That case is set for trial on March 29, 2010. Plaintiff was transferred to CSP-Sacramento without his legal materials pertaining to this action. By separate order, Plaintiff had previously been granted a modification of the scheduling order. The Court will grant Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to Defendants' discovery requests. It is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order in which to file his responses to Defendants' discovery requests sent December 30, 2009.

II. Defendants' March 11, 2010 Motion To Compel

On March 11, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' first set of requests for production of documents, which were sent on December 30, 2009. Because Plaintiff is granted an extension of time to respond to Defendants' discovery requests sent on December 30, 2009, Defendants' motion is denied as moot.

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for an order of protection, filed February 8, 2010, is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order in which to file his responses to Defendants' discovery requests sent on December 30, 2009; and

3. Defendants' motion to compel, filed March 11, 2010, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.