Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lacedric W. Johnson v. D.K. Sisto

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 12, 2013

LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
D.K. SISTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to discovery is before the court. Defendants filed an opposition, and plaintiff did not file a reply. As set forth below, plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.

In his motion, plaintiff contends that the documents provided by defendants in response to plaintiff's request for production of documents were "unreadable," that answers to requests for admissions and interrogatories were "evasive," and included "false denials," and that defendants failed to produce documents known or available to them. Plaintiff refers to an affidavit attached to a request for extension. (Dkt. No. 148 at 1.) In his affidavit, plaintiff states that defendants "failed to respond to discovery requests," and that defendants noticed his deposition for January 31, 2013. (Dkt. No. 147 at 2.) Plaintiff is housed in segregation, and claims that four of his five boxes of legal materials were disposed of by Pleasant Valley State Prison custody staff. (Dkt. No. 147 at 2.) Plaintiff states he would seek to confer with opposing counsel to replace discovery documents. (Id.)

Defendants contend that plaintiff's motion fails to identify a particular discovery request to which defendants did not adequately respond, or offer facts on which to base an order to compel further response. Defendants contend their discovery responses were adequate, and that they produced all responsive items in their possession, custody, or control in response to plaintiff's request for production of documents. Defendants state that they subsequently produced more legible copies of all discovery responses given in this matter. (Dkt. Nos. 156 at 3; 156-1 at 2.)

Plaintiff has not responded to defendants' objections.

Defendants' objections are well taken. The Local Rules require parties to file the request and response that are at issue in connection with a motion to compel discovery. (L.R. 250.2, 250.3, & 250.4.) Plaintiff did not do so. Moreover, plaintiff did not identify the specific request or interrogatory that he challenges, and without copies of the discovery requests and responses, as well as plaintiff's specific arguments directed to each request he challenges as insufficient, the court is unable to determine whether the response was sufficient. Plaintiff's general claims that the responses are "evasive," or include "false denials," are too vague without specific factual references. Finally, it appears that counsel for defendants provided plaintiff with a copy of all discovery responded to by the defendants in this action. (Dkt. No. 156-4 at 2.)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (dkt. no. 148) is denied without prejudice.

20130412

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.