The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff Charles Austin Parks ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (Doc. #35.) Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel on July 30, 2010. (Doc. #36.) Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendants' opposition on August 12, 2010. (Doc. #37.)
A. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
On March 4, 2010, Plaintiff propounded a set of interrogatories on Defendants F.E. Braswell and T. Hieng. On April 20, 2010, Plaintiff received interrogatory responses from Defendants W. Young, K. Alexander, and F. Pighting.*fn1 Plaintiff claims that Defendants F.E. Braswell and T. Hieng failed to respond to the interrogatories.
Plaintiff also contends that the interrogatory responses from Defendants W. Young, K. Alexander, and F. Pighting "were evasive, incomplete and failed to disclose information with out[sic] substantial justification." (Mot. to Compel 6:22-27, ECF No. 35.)
B. Defendants' Opposition
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motion to compel should be denied because Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with Defendants Young, Alexander, and Pighting's responses and it is unclear how the responses were insufficient. Defendants also argue that Braswell and Hieng served Plaintiff with their responses on two separate occasions. Defendants claim that they served their responses on April 16, 2010. Defendants claim that Braswell and Hieng's responses were included in the same package as Young, Alexander, and Pighting's responses and it is unclear why Plaintiff only received three sets of responses. Defendants further claim that they served Braswell and Hieng's responses a second time on June 7, 2010, after Plaintiff informed Defendants that he had not received those responses during Plaintiff's June 4, 2010, deposition.
Plaintiff claims that he never received any responses from Defendant Braswell or Defendant Hieng. Plaintiff contends that he only received responses from Defendants Alexander, Pighting, and Young. Plaintiff also contends that when Defendants' counsel sent the responses a second time on June 7, 2010, Plaintiff received another copy of Alexander, Pighting, and Young's responses.
Plaintiff also clarifies the issues raised in his motion to compel. He states that the motion does not concern the sufficiency of Defendants Alexander, Pighting, and Young's responses and only concerns Braswell and Hieng's failure to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories.
The issue raised in Plaintiff's motion to compel is whether Defendant Braswell and Defendant Hieng responded to Plaintiff's interrogatories. Defendants claim that they served the responses twice while ...