IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 18, 2011
RONALD BROOK, PLAINTIFF,
J.W. HAVILAND, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding without counsel with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 20, 2010, plaintiff filed a "motion to compel discovery." In the motion, plaintiff asserts that he is generally dissatisfied with defendants' responses to his requests for discovery. However, plaintiff fails to identify the specific responses to his requests for discovery (presumably embedded in the over 200 pages of discovery material attached to plaintiff's motion) with which he takes issue. This is not appropriate as it is the movant's burden with respect to a motion to compel to identify which specific discovery requests are the subject of the motion, and then to show why the responses provided to those requests are deficient. Haynes v. Sisto, No. CIV S-08-2177 SPG (PC), 2010 WL 4483486, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2010). For these reasons, plaintiff's motion to compel will be denied.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's December 20, 2010, motion to compel is denied.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.