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.

Lopez v. Hubbard

August 20, 2010

KENNETH LOPEZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SUE HUBBARD, ET AL., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to protect him in violation of the Eighth Amendment, by not providing him a single cell. Plaintiff's complaint describes alleged assaults by other inmates against him in the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (Doc. 37), filed March 22, 2010. Defendants filed an opposition (Doc. 42), on April 7, 2010

Motion to Compel Discovery

A party may bring a motion to compel discovery when another party has failed to respond or respond adequately to a discovery request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). A party may "obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense" but "for good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). As the moving party, plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and for each disputed response, why defendants' objections are not justified or why the response provided is deficient.

Plaintiff's motion seeks production of documents on 17 requests that he had sent to defendants. However, other than listing the document requests in the instant motion to compel, plaintiff provides no other information other than saying he wants the documents produced. Plaintiff has attached no exhibits in support of his motion nor does plaintiff provide any details regarding defendants' objections to the document requests. Plaintiff merely states that defendants refused to present documents for these requests. Plaintiff has not elaborated on the grounds for defendants' refusal and has not specified the specific discovery responses to which he objects. Despite plaintiff's inadequate motion, defendants' have provided plaintiff's requests and defendants' responses which provide some context for the court.

Defendants have since provided the documents requested for plaintiff's requests 1 and 15. Therefore, those requests are moot. With respect to requests 3, 9, 17, 20 and 21, defendants indicate that all documents discovered, have been turned over and no documents were found related to several of plaintiff's requests. As defendants have stated they do not possess any more documents, there is nothing for the court to compel and these requests are denied.

Plaintiff is left with the following requests:

2. 128-B, general chronos, from 1987 to present;

4. 114-A, detention/segregation records, from 1980 to present;

8. GA-154, housing assignments, 1984 to present;

12. ISU report, February 1987;

13. ISU report, April, May or June 1997;

16. 812-C, notice of critical information - ...


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.