United States District Court, E.D. California
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff
has filed multiple motions, which the court addresses below.
22, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (ECF
No. 39.) Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery was
denied on September 7, 2016. (ECF No. 44.) Discovery closed
on July 29, 2016. (ECF No. 30.) On October 26, 2016,
plaintiff filed a second motion to compel discovery seeking
the production of documents. (ECF No. 52.)
December 15, 2016, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. On December 30, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for
extension of time to oppose the motion for summary judgment.
On January 18, 2017, plaintiff filed a document styled
“Discovery is Needed to Oppose Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment.” (ECF No. 64.) Defendants filed
an opposition, and plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 65,
February 10, 2017, plaintiff filed a third motion for an
order compelling discovery, to which he appended his January
18, 2017 filing. (ECF No. 66.) Defendants filed an opposition
and seek sanctions for plaintiff's untimely and repeated
discovery motions, and plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 68,
Motions to Compel
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a
party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an
answer, designation, production, or inspection.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to
provide further responses to an “evasive or incomplete
disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a)(4). “District courts have ‘broad discretion
to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.'”
Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir.
2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation
Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)).
bears the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery
requests are the subject of his motion to compel, (2) which
of the responses are disputed, (3) why he believes the
response is deficient, (4) why defendants' objections are
not justified, and (5) why the information he seeks through
discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action.
McCoy v. Ramirez, 2016 WL 3196738 at *1 (E.D. Cal.
2016); Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D.
Cal. 2008) (“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 defendant's
objections are not justified.”). The reach of Rule 34
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs
requests for production, “extends to all relevant
documents, tangible things and entry upon designated land or
other property.” Clark v. Vega Wholesale Inc.,
181 F.R.D. 470, 472-73 (D. Nev. 1998), citing 8A C. Wright
& A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2206,
purpose of discovery is to “remove surprise from trial
preparation so the parties can obtain evidence necessary to
evaluate and resolve their dispute.” U.S. ex rel.
O'Connell v. Chapman University, 245 F.R.D. 646, 648
(C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). Rule
26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers
guidance on the scope of discovery permitted:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Id. “Relevance for purposes of discovery is
defined very broadly.” Garneau v. City of
Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). “The
party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of
establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy
requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the party opposing
discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should
be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining or
supporting its ...