The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR INFORMATION (Docs. 45 & 46)
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. -§ 1983. On January 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed two motions seeking to compel the production of documents from Defendant. First, Plaintiff requests all documents pertaining to inmates who have either died of Valley Fever, coccidioidomycosis, or pneumonia at Pleasant Valley State Prison since its opening. (Doc. 45.) Second, Plaintiff requests information regarding the companies which were contracted to build Pleasant Valley State Prison, the amount of land the prison sits on, and the cost of the land. (Doc.46.)
Plaintiff is advised that discovery requests to be served on Defendant are not to be filed with the Court until, and unless, Plaintiff becomes dissatisfied with Defendant's response and seeks relief from the Court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Local Rule 250.3. It appears here that Plaintiff has yet to serve his document requests on Defendant, but rather, simply seeks a preemptive court order compelling discovery. This is inappropriate.
Even if Plaintiff has served Defendant with his discovery requests and Defendant has provided Plaintiff with dissatisfactory responses, Plaintiff's motions to compel must still be denied. On a motion to compel, the moving party "must inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of [the] motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the [c]court why the information sought is relevant and why [the opposing party's] objections are not justified." Ellis v. Cambra, No. CIV F-02-5646 AWI SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008); see Williams v. Flint, No. CIV S-06-1238 FCD GGH P, 2007 WL 2274520, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2007) ("It is plaintiff's burden to describe why a particular response is inadequate. It is not enough to generally argue that all responses are incomplete."). In this case, Plaintiff has done neither. Plaintiff fails to explain in his motions why the information he seeks is relevant to his claims and why Defendant's objections to the discovery requests (assuming Defendant was served and objected to them) are not justified.
Accordingly, for all the reasons discussed above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's January 12, 2011, motions for information (Docs. 45 & 46) are DENIED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...