United States District Court, E.D. California
DELTON L. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
HARISHKUMAR PATEL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS ECF No. 31) THIRTY (30) DAY
MICHAEL J. SENG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Delton L. Taylor, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 on November 10, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) This
action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint,
filed on February 23, 2015, against Defendants Harishkumar
Patel and Richard Le for medical indifference in violation of
the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (ECF
before the Court is Defendants’ May 12, 2016 motion to
compel responses to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories
and requests for production of documents. (ECF No. 31.) To
date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. The matter is
submitted. Local Rule 230(1).
Court issued a scheduling order in this case on September 30,
2015. (ECF No. 23.) The order set a discovery deadline of May
30, 2016 and a dispositive motion deadline of August 8, 2016.
At Defendants’ request, the Court issued an order
modifying the scheduling order and extending the discovery
deadline to September 1, 2016 and the dispositive motion
deadline to November 8, 2016. (ECF No. 33.)
October 1, 2015, Defendants propounded Requests for
Production of Documents, Set One, to Plaintiff. Each
Defendant also propounded Special Interrogatories, Set One,
to Plaintiff. (Marquez Dec. ¶ 2 (ECF No. 31-1))
Plaintiff provided responses to each Defendant’s
special interrogatories and produced documents called for in
Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, but to
date has failed to provide the written response to each
request for production required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 34(b)(2)(B). Id. at ¶ 4.
about December 10, 2015, Defendants each propounded Special
Interrogatories, Set Two to Plaintiff. Id. at ¶
7. To date, Plaintiff has not responded. Id. On
January 19, 2016, and February 12, 2016, Defendants sent
Plaintiff a meet and confer letter regarding his failure to
provide written responses to Defendants’ production
requests and Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Id.
at ¶¶ 8, 9. Plaintiff has failed to respond.
Id. at ¶ 10.
filed the instant motion to compel on May 12, 2016. (ECF No.
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. 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)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), “[a]n
interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired
into under Rule 26(b).” Further, a party may serve on
any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to
“produce and permit the requesting party or its
representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample” any
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible
things “in the responding party's possession,
custody or control.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1).
to Rule 37(a), a party propounding discovery may seek an
order compelling disclosure when an opposing party has failed
to respond or has provided evasive or incomplete responses.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B). The failure to timely object to a
discovery request may be deemed a waiver of the objection.
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959
F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992).
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.