The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 65, 67, 69) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 79, 80)
Plaintiff Fred Price ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the complaint, filed March 24, 2008, against Defendants Cunningham and Mullins for violations of the First and Eighth Amendments. On November 21, 2011, an order issued opening discovery in this action. (ECF No. 53.) On July 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 64.) On July 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 65.) Defendants filed an opposition to the motion for a protective order on August 6, 2012, and an opposition to the motion to compel on August 7, 2012. (ECF Nos. 66, 67.) On August 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition to the motion for a protective order, and on August 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition to the motion to compel. (ECF Nos. 68, 69.)
On October 8, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 72.) On October 16, 2012, Defendants were ordered to file supplemental briefing on Plaintiff's motion for a protective order within fifteen days.*fn1 (ECF No. 75.) On October 19, 2012, Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment was granted. (ECF No. 77.) On October 25, 2012, Plaintiff file a motion to stay the motion for summary judgment, and on October 26, 2012, Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to stay. (ECF Nos. 79, 80.)
"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). If Defendants object to one of Plaintiff's discovery requests, it is Plaintiff's burden on his motion to compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. In general, Plaintiff must inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the Court why the information sought is relevant and why Defendants' objections are not meritorious.
For document production requests, responding parties must produce documents which are in their "possession, custody or control." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). "Property is deemed within a party's 'possession, custody, or control' if the party has actual possession, custody, or control thereof or the legal right to obtain the property on demand." Allen v. Woodford, No. CV-F-05-1104 OWW LJO, 2007 WL 309945, *2 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 30, 2007) (citing In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995)); accord Bovarie v. Schwarzenegger, No. 08cv1661 LAB (NLS), 2011 WL 719206, at *4 (S.D.Cal. Feb. 22, 2011); Evans v. Tilton, No. 1:07CV01814 DLB PC, 2010 WL 1136216, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 19, 2010).
B. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery
Plaintiff states that he is moving for a motion to compel Defendant Cunningham to produce documents in response to his first and second set of his request for production of documents, however the Court notes that the requests were made in the first second, and third request for production of documents.
1. Requests for Production of Documents Defendants Contend Do Not Exist
Plaintiff's request for production of documents, set one, no. 1 states:
The Facility 4A-Building 3 Daily Housing Unit Log Book Pages for November 9, 2006, and November 15, 2006, ...