Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Ryan

June 3, 2010

RODNEY WAYNE JONES, CDCR #D-55894, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STUART J. RYAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jan M. Adler U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL [Doc. 137]

On May 7, 2010, the defendants represented by the Office of the Attorney General (S. Ryan, L. Valenzuela, T. Ochoa, J. Ortiz, S. Ritter, J. Flores, M. Jimenez, K. Schommer, O. Martinez, A. Rangel, D. Bell, N. Mejia, C. Rodiles, M. Sandoval, J. Wells, P. Zills, O. Andalon, G. Stratton, T. Price, S. Cosio, and F. Castaneda) (hereafter "Defendants") filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Doc. 137. Plaintiff's opposition to the motion was due by May 26, 2010. See Apr. 22, 2010 Order, ¶ 1; Defs.' Notice of Motion at 1, 2. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

The Court has considered Defendants' motion, including the discovery requests and responses attached as exhibits thereto. Defendants' motion to compel is GRANTED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 37(a) as follows:

Interrogatories Propounded by Defendant Schommer

Nos. 1 and 3: Plaintiff shall provide supplemental responses which specify the names of the "CAL staff and inmate eyewitnesses" and the names of the inmates who provided the declarations referred to in his initial responses to these interrogatories. Plaintiff shall also specifically identify the medical records referred to in his responses to these interrogatories.

No. 5: Plaintiff shall provide a supplemental response which specifies the names of the "CAL medical staff eyewitnesses" and which specifically identify the medical records referred to in his initial response to this interrogatory.

Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18: Plaintiff shall provide supplemental responses which specify the name, address, telephone number, and inmate number, if appropriate, of any persons who have knowledge of Plaintiff's contentions or who have provided a statement, as further described in these interrogatories. Because Plaintiff did not move for a protective order before the discovery motion filing cutoff of May 7, 2010 (see Apr. 22, 2010 Order, ¶ 1) and has not otherwise demonstrated that a protective order is necessary, this information shall be provided notwithstanding the lack of a protective order in this case.

Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22: Plaintiff shall provide responses to these interrogatories. They do not call for expert opinion.

Interrogatories Propounded by Defendant Ryan

Nos. 4 and 5: Plaintiff shall provide supplemental responses which specifically provide the information sought in these interrogatories. If Plaintiff prefers to produce his medical records in lieu of providing written responses, as indicated in his initial responses to these interrogatories, he may do so.

Requests for Production of Documents Set Forth in Notice of Deposition

Nos. 8 and 14: Plaintiff shall produce all documents responsive to these requests, including but not limited to the "two declarations from two inmates" referred to by Plaintiff in his deposition. See Jones Dep. at p. 69, attached as Ex. 2 to Snyder Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Compel. As set forth above, because Plaintiff did not move for a protective order before the discovery motion filing cutoff of May 7, 2010 (see Apr. 22, 2010 Order, ¶ 1) and has not otherwise demonstrated that a protective order is necessary, these documents shall be provided notwithstanding the lack of a protective order in this case.

Conclusion

Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents is GRANTED. All further responses and production of documents required by this Order shall be served by no later than June 30, 2010. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to obey an order to provide discovery may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on the introduction of matters in evidence (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)), and that the failure to provide information or identify a witness as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) or (e) necessitates that the party not be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.