Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ivan Ray Carter, Jr v. A. Fernandez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 1, 2011

IVAN RAY CARTER, JR.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
A. FERNANDEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT (DOC. 70)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DOC. 75)

Plaintiff Ivan Ray Carter, Jr. ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). This action is proceeding against Defendants A Fernandez, R. Reynaga, H. Carrillo, L. Ceasear, and Darren Jones for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court is: 1) Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a motion to compel, filed October 1, 2010, and 2) Plaintiff's motion to compel. Docs. 70, 75.

I. Motion For Extension of Time

Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion to compel. The Court adjudicated Plaintiff's other motions to compel on October 22, 2010, and granted Plaintiff leave to file a motion to compel regarding his second request for production of documents only. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to compel on November 1, 2010. Thus, Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is HEREBY DISREGARDED as moot. The Court will now address Plaintiff's motion to compel.

II. November 1, 2010 Motion To Compel

Plaintiff seeks further response to his second request for production of documents.

Defendants did not file any opposition. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(1). Plaintiff contends that Defendants should be compelled to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Plaintiff attaches Defendants' responses to his motion.

Request No. 1: "Produce and relinquish the documents of policy and procedurs [sic] related to excessive use of force, per departmental Operational Manual 'DOM'."

Defendants responded by stating that they had previously produced all responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. As there was no showing by Plaintiff that Defendants have not responded with responsive documents, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to Request For Production No. 1 is denied.

Request No. 2: "Produce and relinquish any and all statements/incident reports written by participants and/or non-participants in the excessive use of force Dated: April 13, 2007."

Defendants responded by stating that they had previously produced all responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. As there was no showing by Plaintiff that Defendants have not responded with responsive documents, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to Request For Production No. 2 is denied.

Request No. 3: "Produce and relinquish unredacted and unedited disc's related to Date:

April 14, 2007 and Date: July 21, 2007."

Defendants responded by stating that Plaintiff's request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as drafted. The Court agrees. It is unclear what discs Plaintiff refers to, and what their relevance is to this action. It is Plaintiff's burden as the movant to demonstrate what grounds he has to compel further response from Defendants. As Plaintiff has not done so, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to Request For Production No. 3 is denied.

Request No. 4: "Produce and relinquish unredacted and unedited yard tape Date: April 13, 2007."

Defendants responded by stating that they do not have any responsive documents in their possession, custody or control. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff's request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as drafted. The Court agrees that the request is vague as to what Plaintiff seeks produced. It is unclear what yard tape Plaintiff seeks and what the relevance of these tapes is to this action. It is Plaintiff's burden as the movant to demonstrate what grounds he has to compel further response from Defendants. As Plaintiff has not done so, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to Request For Production No. 4 is denied.

Request No. 5: "Produce and relinquish any policy & procedures that correctional staff was following on April 13, 2007, during the excessive use of force." Defendants contend that this request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and argumentative. The Court agrees that the request is argumentative and overbroad as to what Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff has not explained what grounds he has to compel further response from Defendants. As Plaintiff has not done so, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to Request For Production No. 5 is denied.

Request No. 6: "Produce and relinquish all CDC - 7219 related to excessive use of force on April 13, 2007."

Defendants contend that they had previously propounded their responses to Plaintiff. As there was no showing by Plaintiff that Defendants have not responded with responsive documents, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to Request For Production No. 6 is denied.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a motion to compel, filed October 1, 2010, is DISREGARDED as moot; and

2. Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed November 1, 2010, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3b142a

20110201

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.