IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 24, 2011
KEVIN JACKSON, PLAINTIFF,
TESSIE RALLOS, M.D., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel. On February 25, 2011, counsel for defendants filed a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, and noticed the motion for hearing on March 31, 2011 before the undersigned. By order filed November 5, 2010, the parties were informed that they must comply with Local Rule 230(l), and that Local Rule 251 shall not apply unless otherwise ordered by the court. (Dkt. No. 24 at 5.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), oppositions to motions shall be filed not more than twenty-one days after the date of service of the motion. Plaintiff's opposition was due on or before March 18, 2011. That date has now passed, and plaintiff has failed to file an opposition or otherwise respond to the motion, despite defense counsel's efforts to obtain plaintiff's counsel's cooperation in the meet and confer process.
Local Rule 230(l) provides, in pertinent part, that Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.Id.
The court has reviewed defendants' motion and finds it well-taken. The requesting party is entitled to individualized, complete responses to each of the requests, as numbered and identified in the requests, accompanied by production of each of the documents responsive to the request, regardless of whether the documents have already been produced.
Louen v. Twedt, 236 F.R.D. 502 (E.D. Cal. 2006). Defendants' motion to compel is granted, and the court will vacate the March 31, 2011 hearing. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely comply with this order, or to cooperate in the discovery process, may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' motion to compel further responses to the requests for production of documents (dkt. no. 25) is granted. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall provide individualized, complete responses to each of the requests, as numbered and identified in the requests, and accompanied by production of each of the documents identified as responsive to the request. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.
2. The March 31, 2011 hearing is vacated.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.