The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed April 5, 2010. Plaintiff alleges that he was repeatedly denied access to pain medication, as a result of which he suffered pain and symptoms of withdrawal.
Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel filed April 18, 2011. Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to adequately respond to: his request for production of documents (set two); and request for admissions addressed to defendant Medina (set three).
For the following reasons, plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff first argues that defendants' responses to his discovery requests were untimely. For the following reasons, the undersigned finds that defendants' responses were not untimely.
Pursuant to the September 15, 2010 scheduling order, responses to written discovery requests are due forty-five days after the request is served. (Dkt. No. 22, at 5.) On February 23, 2011, defendants were ordered to respond to the at-issue discovery requests. (Dkt. No. 53, at 2.) Defendants served plaintiff with their responses on March 21, 2011. In their opposition to the pending motion, defendants argue that these responses were served within the forty-five day time limit ordered by the court.*fn1
For the reasons stated by defendants, the undersigned finds that defendants' responses to the at-issue discovery requests were timely.
B. Request for Production of Documents
Plaintiff's motion to compel disputes defendants' responses to request for production of documents nos. 1-6, 8, 9, 10 and 14.*fn2
Plaintiff's first six requests ask defendants to produce all documents in support of their six affirmative defenses. In response to all six requests, defendants responded, Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is over broad, vague and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, the information is not within the defendants' personal knowledge, possession, custody or control. In the event defendants gain possession, custody or control of these documents, defendants will supplement their answers.
In their opposition to the pending motion to compel, defendants argue that they do not yet have any documents in their possession, custody or control that would respond to plaintiff's request for ...