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.

Juarez v. Butts

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 16, 2019

JOSE JUAREZ, Plaintiff,
v.
CARMEN BUTTS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that they retaliated against him. Before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses from defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny the motion.

         BACKGROUND

         This case is proceeding on plaintiff's fourth amended complaint filed here on July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 74.) On screening, this court found plaintiff stated potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Atienza and Bhatia for deliberate indifference to his serious pain. The court further found plaintiff alleged a potentially cognizable claim that Atienza refused to provide him medication in retaliation for plaintiff's filing a staff complaint against him. (ECF No. 81.)

         Both defendants have answered the fourth amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 106, 121.) On May 31, 2019, this court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order which set a deadline of September 27, 2019 for discovery, including motions to compel discovery, and a deadline of December 27, 2019 for all other pretrial motions. (ECF No. 119.) The order also informed the parties that “[a]ll requests for discovery . . . shall be served not later than sixty days prior to” September 27, 2019. (Id. at 5.)

         On November 22, 2019, plaintiff filed the present motion to compel. (ECF No. 122.) Defendants have not filed a response.

         MOTION TO COMPEL

         I. Legal Standards

         Under 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. County 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)).

         The party moving to compel bears the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are disputed, (3) why the party believes the response is deficient, (4) why any objections are not justified, and (5) why the information sought through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. McCoy v. Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv-1808-MJS (PC), 2016 WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-5646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 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, at 381).

         The purpose of discovery is to “remove surprise from trial preparation so the parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute.” United States 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 information 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.

         “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 objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 07cv200 JM (PCL), 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (internal citation omitted).

         II. ...


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.