Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff's motions to compel discovery.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL INTERROGATORIES
On March 4, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories (set one) from defendant Runnels. In his motion, plaintiff argues that defendant has deliberately delayed answering those interrogatories. In addition, plaintiff argues that the answers defendant Runnels has provided are incomplete. Accordingly, plaintiff requests a court order compelling defendant Runnels to "fully answer" his interrogatories. Plaintiff also seeks $250 in sanctions. (Pl.'s Mot. to Compel Interrog. at 1-2.)
II. Defendant's Opposition
In opposition to plaintiff's motion to compel, defendant Runnels argues that he has fully answered plaintiff's interrogatories. Defendant argues further that his objections posed to plaintiff's interrogatories are also well-grounded. In support of his argument, defendant Runnels has attached to his opposition a copy of plaintiff's interrogatories, defendant's responses, and an explanation as to why each response and objection is satisfactory. Defendant concludes that plaintiff, in contrast, has failed to set forth which interrogatory response plaintiff has deemed deficient and the reasons why he believes the response to be deficient as required. (Def.'s Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. to Compel Interrog. at 1-9.)
III. Plaintiff's Reply*fn1
In reply, plaintiff restates each of his interrogatories submitted to defendant Runnels, provides defendant's response to each, and explains why he believes defendant has deliberately failed to fully respond to each interrogatory. In this regard, plaintiff for the most part accuses defendant of "an exquisitely contrived chicanery of tautology, technicality, [and] inconsistency which has maximized dely and [the] denial of justice without substantial justification, and is a strain on the court's resources. Defendant has knowingly and willfully given a false and deceptive answer...." In several instances, plaintiff also references provisions of the California Code of Regulations, which he appears to believe contradict defendant's responses. (Pl.'s Mot. to Strike at 1-8.)
Plaintiff's motion to compel further interrogatory responses from defendant
Runnels will be denied. Pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to compel may be brought "[i]f a party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a)" or replies to a discovery request with an "evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response." Here, the court finds that the responses by defendant Runnels to plaintiff's interrogatories are not incomplete or evasive. Although defendant's responses do not mirror the language of the California Code of Regulations, defendant has provided substantive responses where appropriate. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to specify how defendant's responses are deficient or what additional information he seeks. Finally, the court finds defendant's objections justified. Plaintiff's interrogatories, in many instances, are vague, contain compound questions, and often phrased in a way that appears intended to force defendants to admit liability by answering.
The court will also deny plaintiff's request for $250.00 in sanctions. As explained above, defendant Runnel's responses to plaintiff's interrogatories (set one) are sufficient and his objections are well-taken. In addition, defendant's responses were timely served. Under these circumstances, the court finds that plaintiff's request is unwarranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF ...