Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

McCoy v. Ramirez

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 15, 2017

LAKEITH LEROY MCCOY, Plaintiff,
v.
J. RAMIREZ, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S JANUARY 23, 2017, MOTION TO COMPEL; (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S JANUARY 27, 2017, MOTION TO COMPEL; AND (3) DEYING PLAINTIFF'S FEBRUARY 13, 2017, MOTION TO VACATE ORDER (ECF NOS. 95-96, 98)

          MICHAEL J. SENG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds against Defendant Jason Ramirez on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.

         This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's January 23 and 27, 2017, motions to compel and a February 13, 2017, motion to vacate court order. (ECF Nos. 95-96, 98.) Defendant opposes the motions.

         I. Relevant Procedural History

         Plaintiff initiated this action on November 8, 2013, and is proceeding on a Second Amended Complaint, filed June 22, 2015, on a single excessive force claim. The discovery deadline in this case was February 1, 2017, and the dispositive motion deadline was March 15, 2017. (ECF Nos. 58, 91.)

         II. The Parties' Discovery Efforts

         The parties' discovery efforts in this single-claim, single-Defendant case have been marred by ongoing disputes. Since the beginning of the discovery period, Plaintiff has filed six motions to compel and/or motions for sanctions (ECF Nos. 67, 69, 79, 86, 95, 96). Defendant, for his part, has filed two motions for protective order. (ECF Nos. 85, 89.) These motions relate to Plaintiff's propounded discovery as follows:

         A. Requests for Admissions

         On October 20, 2016, Plaintiff served his Request for Admissions (“RFA”). Defendant responded on November 16, 2016.

         Plaintiff's pending January 23, 2017, motion to compel concerns Defendant's responses to RFA Nos. 2, 8, and 10. (ECF No. 95.) This motion will be addressed herein.

         B. Requests for Production of Documents

         1. Set One

         On March 24, 2016, Plaintiff propounded Set One Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”). On April 12, 2016, Defendant served responses, which included the production of some documents and objections to producing certain others.

         Plaintiff's July 5, 2016, Motion to Compel (ECF No. 67) challenged some of Defendant's responses to specific document production requests. That motion was granted in part on August 26, 2016 (ECF No. 74), and Defendant was directed to submit further responses to Set One RPD Nos. 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17.

         On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed another motion to compel concerning Defendant's supplemental responses to Set One RPD Nos. 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17. (ECF No. 79.)

         On December 19, 2016, Plaintiff's motion to compel was granted in part, Defendant's related motion for protective order was granted in part, and Defendant was directed to produce additional documents to Plaintiff with redactions. (ECF No. 91.)

         In the pending January 27, 2017, motion to compel, Plaintiff claims that he has not yet received the redacted documents. (ECF No. 96.) Defendant will thus be directed to re-serve those documents on Plaintiff.

         2. Set Two

         On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff served Set Two Request for Production of Documents. Defendant served his responses on November 16, 2016.

         Plaintiff's pending January 23, 2017, motion to compel concerns Defendant's responses to Set Two RPD Nos. 1-9. (ECF No. 95.) This motion will be addressed herein.

         C. Interrogatories

         1. First Set

         On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff served his First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-25). Defendant served his responses on June 16, 2016.

         Plaintiff's July 18, 2016, motion to compel concerned Defendant's response to Interrogatory Nos. 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, and 25. (ECF No. 69.) Plaintiff's motion was denied on August 29, 2016. (ECF No. 74.)

         In his October 11, 2016, motion to compel referred to supra, Plaintiff also sought to compel further response to Interrogatory No. 13 from his First Set of Interrogatories. (ECF No. 79.) This portion of the motion was denied on December 19, 2016. (ECF No. 91.) These responses are not in dispute.

         2. Second Set

         On October 20, 2016, Plaintiff served his Second Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-23). On November 16, 2016, Defendant objected to each of these interrogatories on the ground that Plaintiff exceeded the number of permissible interrogatories.

         Plaintiff's pending January 23, 2017, motion to compel concerns Defendant's response to Set Two Interrogatory Nos. 1-23. (ECF No. 95.) This motion will be addressed herein.

         D. Demand for Inspection and Photographing

         On October 20, 2016, Plaintiff served his First Demand for Inspection and Photographing. Defendant served his response to this request on November 28, 2016.

         On December 19, 2016, Defendant moved for a protective order concerning this request. (ECF No. 89.) His motion was granted on January 17, 2017, after ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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