IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 21, 2011
MALIK JONES, PLAINTIFF,
T. FARLEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Farley moves for an order compelling plaintiff to respond to his request for production of documents, set one, on the ground that plaintiff failed to respond to that request or offer any explanation for his failure to respond. See Dckt. No. 22 (filed pursuant toFed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv)). Defendant's motion is accompanied by defense counsel's sworn declaration stating that defendant timely requested discovery, and that plaintiff has failed to respond. Dckt. No. 22, Ex. A. The motion also includes as Attachment 1, the request for production, which consists of four separate requests, all aimed at obtaining documents that appear reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P 26(b)(1). Defendant requests an order directing plaintiff to respond in writing, and without objections, to defendant's request for production. Plaintiff has not opposed or otherwise responded to defendant's motion. Good cause appearing, defendant's motion will be granted. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) ("It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection"). Plaintiff has not explained his failure to respond, or argued why his failure to respond should not result in the waiver of objections.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:
1. Defendant's June 17, 2011 motion to compel is granted; and
2. Within ten days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall respond in writing and without objections, to defendant's request for production of documents, set one.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.