The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS
Plaintiff Sammy Morris ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendant D. Rhodes for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's three motions to compel, all filed September 13, 2010. Docs. 27, 28, 29. Defendant Rhodes filed his opposition on September 29, 2010. Doc.
30. Plaintiff filed his reply to Defendant's opposition on December 13, 2010. Doc. 39. Also pending is Plaintiff's motion to stay summary judgment proceedings pending
resolution of the discovery dispute, filed December 17, 2010, and Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed December 23, 2010. Docs. 40, 41. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). // //
I. Motion To Compel - Requests for Production*fn1
Plaintiff moves to compel further response to requests for production Nos. 1 through 15. Plaintiff contends that Defendant did not respond to any of Plaintiff's requests.
Defendant Rhodes contends that he did not respond because Plaintiff did not actually serve him with any discovery requesting production of documents. Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not submitted the discovery requests that he was supposed to send to Defendant.
A review of Plaintiff's motion indicates that Plaintiff did not submit the discovery requests that he was supposed to send to Defendant, or any evidence that he did serve Defendant with the requests for production. As there is no evidence that Defendant Rhodes was served with requests for production, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to Plaintiff's requests for production is denied.
II. Motion To Compel - Interrogatories
Plaintiff moves to compel further response to interrogatories Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's responses were vague and evasive.
Defendant contends that he did not respond to the interrogatories because they were directed at non-defendants. Defendant contends that interrogatories may only be served on parties, and as a result, did not respond. Defendant includes a copy of the interrogatories in their opposition.
Having examined Plaintiff's interrogatories, the Court agrees with Defendant. Plaintiff directed interrogatories at M. Carrasco, D. Zanhi, D. Chapman, B. Stallcup, E. Salina, P. Bryant, Dr. Tongen, and D. Martinez, none of whom are Defendants in this action. Interrogatories are not a discovery device for use on non-parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) (stating that "[a] party may serve on any other party" up to 25 interrogatories) (emphasis added). Defendant additionally informed Plaintiff by letter that he would not be providing a response to Plaintiff's ...