IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 12, 2011
DARREN HENDERSON, PLAINTIFF,
T. FELKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He moves to compel defendants to fully answer his discovery requests. Dckt. Nos. 81-84. Plaintiff does not, however, indicate in what way defendants' responses are deficient. Defendants oppose plaintiff's motions on the grounds that they have fully responded to all written discovery and because plaintiff has failed to meet his burden as to why defendants' responses were not appropriate. Dckt. No. 85; see also id., Decl. of Richard B. Price in Supp. of Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. to Compel ("Price Decl."), ¶ 3. Defense counsel also indicates that defendants provided in their February 15, 2011 responses to plaintiff's request for production of documents, 213 pages of documents, which represent all of the documents defendants have in their possession, custody or control. Price Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.
A motion to compel is appropriate when a party fails to provide responses to interrogatories submitted under Rule 33, or fails to produce relevant, non-privileged documents requested pursuant to Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv). An evasive or incomplete answer or response to a discovery request "must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of informing the court why the defendants' objections are not justified or why the defendants' responses are otherwise deficient.
Here, plaintiff offers no explanation as to why defendants' responses to his discovery requests were deficient. Without knowing how defendants responded to plaintiff's discovery requests, or on what grounds plaintiff moves to compel further responses, there is no basis on which to grant plaintiff's motions.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motions to compel, Dckt. Nos. 81-84, are denied.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.