United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER
COMPELLING DISCOVERY (ECF NO. 59)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Anthony Tyrone Campbell, Sr. (“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 currently proceeds on
Plaintiff's second amended complaint against Defendant P.
Dickey (“Defendant”) for racial discrimination in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment based on allegations that Defendant assigned
Plaintiff to a cell with a gang-affiliated inmate based on
Plaintiff's race. (ECF No. 25.)
asserts that he “submitted” Interrogatories, Set
One, on January 29, 2019. (ECF No. 59, at 1.) On March 15,
2019, Defendant served responses to Plaintiff's
Interrogatories, Set One. (Id., at 4-22.)
March 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order
compelling discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(a)(3)(B). (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff's motion
to compel was received by the Court and docketed on April 4,
2019. Defendant has not filed any opposition to
Plaintiff's motion to compel, and the time in which to do
so has now passed. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to
compel is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(1).
Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling
moves the Court for an order compelling Defendant to provide
further responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set
One, numbers 9, 10, 11, and 12. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff
argues that the Court should order Defendant to provide
further responses to the specified interrogatories because
the specified interrogatories “are not requiring
Defendant to guess … whether or not other compelling
complaints” had been submitted against him during
Defendant's 16 years of employment. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff asserts that this information is of
“significant importance to [his] claim” against
Defendant “because it[']s relevant to the
Defendant's existing pattern of serious staff
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.
may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
is relevant to any party's claim or defense, ” and
information within this scope “need not be admissible
in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be
inquired into under Rule 26(b), and an interrogatory is not
objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or
contention that relates to fact or the application of law to
fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(2) (quotation marks omitted).
Parties are obligated to respond to interrogatories to the
fullest extent possible under oath, Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(3),
and any objections must be stated with specificity,
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d
1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[O]bjections should be
plain enough and specific enough so that the court can
understand in what way the interrogatories are alleged to be
objectionable.”). A responding party is not generally
required to conduct extensive research in order to answer an
interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be
made. Gorrell v. Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 629, 632 (E.D.
Cal. 2013). Further, the responding party has a duty to
supplement any responses if the responding party
“learns that in some material respect the …
response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or
corrective information has not otherwise been made known to
the other parties during the discovery process or in
writing[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e)(1)(A).
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. Grabek v.
Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at
*1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack v. Virga, No.
CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal.
Dec. 21, 2011). 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, 2011 WL 6703958, at
Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 9-12
to the information entailed in this civil action against you
have you ever had any other ...