The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DOC. 84)DEFENDANT'S FURTHER RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Jean-Pierre K. Thomas ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants M.
P. Garcia and Bonilla for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed August 29, 2011. Pl.'s Mot. Compel, Doc. 84. Defendants filed their opposition on September 19, 2011. Defs.' Opp'n, Doc. 87. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
Plaintiff moves to compel further answers from Defendant Garcia to Plaintiff's interrogatories Nos. 1 through 10 in Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories. "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense. . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The responding party is obligated to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest extent possible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). The responding party shall use common sense and reason. E.g., Collins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 06-2466-CM-DJW, 2008 WL 1924935, *8 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2008). A responding party is not generally required to conduct extensive research in order to answer an interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made. L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, No. S-06-2042 LKK GGH, 2007 WL 2781132, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2007). Further, the responding party has a duty to supplement any responses if the information sought is later obtained or the response provided needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1).
Plaintiff moves to compel answers to the following interrogatories.
Interrog. No. 1: Were you aware that the Plaintiff had been trying to serve you this complaint for over 2 years?
Interrog. No. 2: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 1 was yes? Then why did Plaintiff have a lot of difficulty serving you this complaint?
Interrog. No. 3: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 1 was no? Then can you state the first time you plainly were aware that the Plaintiff was trying to serve you this complaint?
Interrog. No. 4: Did anybody know your whereabouts the last 2 years or so as Plaintiff
Jean-Pierre K. Thomas tried to serve you this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Interrog. No. 5: Were you aware that before and on 2-28-10 a process server tried to serve you this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Defendant's responses to all five were: "Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
Plaintiff contends that Defendant Garcia may have attempted to avoid service of process, and that Defendant's counsel may have participated in such actions. Pl.'s Mot. Compel 3-4. Defendant's counsel denies assisting Defendant Garcia in avoiding service, and that she is under no ...