United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5 ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (ECF NO. 95)
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The case proceeds on Plaintiff’s First
Amendment free exercise of religion claim against Defendant
Escamilla. (ECF No. 9.)
Before
the Court is Plaintiff’s June 3, 2016 motion to compel
discovery. (ECF No. 95.) Defendant filed an opposition to
Plaintiff’s motion on June 29, 2016. (ECF No. 100.)
Plaintiff did not file a reply. In hopes of the efficient
resolution of this discovery issue, the Court held a
telephonic discovery dispute conference (“TDDC”)
for July 8, 2016 at 11:00 am.
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff
first filed a motion to compel discovery on September 14,
2015. (ECF No. 51.) On December 2, 2015, the Court denied
Plaintiff’s motion in part because Plaintiff failed to
state which of Defendant’s responses were inadequate
and why. (ECF No. 56.) The Court did, however, extend the
discovery deadline by fourteen days to allow Plaintiff an
opportunity to file an amended motion to compel curing
identified deficiencies. Id. Plaintiff filed an
amended motion to compel on December 17, 2015. (ECF No. 61.)
On
March 29, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiff’s amended motion to compel and directed
Defendant to serve further responses to certain requests for
admissions and interrogatories within fourteen days of the
Court’s order. (ECF No. 79.)[1]
On May
1, 2016, in accordance with the Court’s order,
Defendant served supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests. (ECF No. 95 at 14-15.) On June 3, 2016,
Plaintiff filed another motion to compel, arguing Defendant
had failed to fully comply with the Court’s March 29,
2016 order directing him to provide a response to
Interrogatory No. 5. (ECF No. 95.) Plaintiff also requested
the Court impose sanctions on Defendant for failing to comply
with the Court’s order. Defendant filed an opposition
to Plaintiff’s motion to compel on June 29, 2016. (ECF
No. 100.) Plaintiff has not filed a reply.
On July
8, 2016, the Court held the above-referenced TDDC. Plaintiff
appeared pro se, and Deputy Attorney General Arthur Mark
appeared on behalf of Defendant.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
The
discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of
good faith. Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669
F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir.1981). Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense, and for good cause, the Court
may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject
matter involved in the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if
the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Id.
Generally,
if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the
party moving to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why
the objections are not justified. E.g., Grabek
v. Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P., 2012 WL 113799,
at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Ellis v. Cambra,
No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS (PC), 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D.
Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the moving party to inform
the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the
motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the
information sought is relevant and why the responding
party's objections are not meritorious. Grabek,
2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack v. Virga, No. CIV
S-11-1030 MCE EFB P., 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec.
21, 2011).
The
court must limit discovery if the burden of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(2)(C)(iii). “In each instance, the determination
whether . . . information is discoverable because it is
relevant to the claims or defenses depends on the
circumstances of the pending action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26
Advisory Committee’s Note (2000 Amendment) (Gap Report)
(Subdivision (b)(1)).
III.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s
motion to compel stems from Defendant’s alleged failure
to fully respond to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 5,
Set One, which reads:
“Have
you ever been found guilty of misconduct of any kind?”
(ECF No. 51 at 62.)
A.
...