Howard v. Gradtillo et al
Filing
80
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 75 Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Motion to Compel; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 77 Motion to Compel; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 78 Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 4/13/2012. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
CLARENCE HOWARD,
CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00906-AWI-GBC (PC)
6
7
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO RECONSIDER ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO COMPEL
Doc. 75
9
GRADTILLO, et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL
10
11
Defendants.
Doc. 77
12
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE
13
14
______________________________________/ Doc. 78
15
16
I.
Procedural History
17
On June 13, 2005, Plaintiff Clarence Howard (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and
18
in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 15, 2010, the
19
Court found a cognizable claim against Defendants Bennett, Avila, and Jones (“Defendants”) for
20
excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Doc. 27. On March 31, 2011, the Court issued
21
a discovery and scheduling order, setting a discovery deadline of November 30, 2011. Doc. 50. On
22
September 7, 2011, and on October 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed duplicative motions to compel discovery.
23
Docs. 56, 59. On November 4, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to modify scheduling order,
24
setting a revised discovery deadline of January 16, 2012, and a revised dispositive motion deadline of
25
March 16, 2012. Doc. 64. On November 22, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions to compel, with
26
leave to submit an amended motion to compel. Doc. 66. On December 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion
27
titled “Request to Leave to File Amended Motion to Compel.” Doc. 67. On December 20, 2011, the
28
Court denied Plaintiff’s amended motion to compel for failing to meet his burden and as procedurally
Page 1 of 4
1
defective. Doc. 68. On January 3, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to modify scheduling order,
2
setting a revised discovery deadline of March 16, 2012, and a revised dispositive motion deadline of
3
May 16, 2012. Doc. 71. On February 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider order denying
4
Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Doc. 75. On February 9, 2012, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s
5
motion to reconsider order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Doc. 76. On March 7, 2012, Plaintiff
6
filed a motion to compel. Doc. 77. On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend discovery
7
deadline. Doc. 78. On March 16, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 79.
8
II.
Rule 60(b) Motion for Reconsideration
9
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs relief from orders of the district court. The Rule
10
permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake,
11
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (3) fraud . . . by an opposing party, . . . or (6) any other
12
reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within
13
a reasonable time. Id. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest
14
injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531
15
F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances
16
beyond his control . . . .” Id. Local Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts
17
or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or
18
what other grounds exist for the motion.” “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent
19
highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
20
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be
21
used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been
22
raised earlier in the litigation.” Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d
23
873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original).
24
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration does not reveal any newly discovered evidence, that the
25
Court committed clear error, or that there was an intervening change in the controlling law. The Court
26
held that Plaintiff failed to show he submitted discovery requests to Defendants, and failed to set forth
27
each discovery request and the response that was in issue. Therefore, the Court Plaintiff’s motion for
28
reconsideration is denied.
Page 2 of 4
1
III.
Motion to Compel
2
A.
3
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
4
claim or defense . . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
5
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The
6
responding party is obligated to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest extent possible, Fed. R. Civ.
7
P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). The responding
8
party shall use common sense and reason. E.g., Collins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 06-2466-CM-
9
DJW, 2008 WL 1924935, *8 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2008). A responding party is not generally required to
10
conduct extensive research in order to answer an interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must
11
be made. L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, No. S-06-2042 LKK GGH, 2007 WL 2781132, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep.
12
21, 2007). Further, the responding party has a duty to supplement any responses if the information
13
sought is later obtained or the response provided needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(A).
Legal Standard
14
If Defendants object to one of Plaintiff’s discovery requests, it is Plaintiff’s burden on his motion
15
to compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. In general, Plaintiff must inform the Court
16
which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response,
17
inform the Court why the information sought is relevant under Rule 26(b)(1) and why Defendants’
18
objections are not justified.
19
B.
20
In its orders filed on November 22, 2011, and on December 20, 2011, the Court previously
21
informed Plaintiff of the requirements necessary to submit a motion to compel. Docs. 66, 68. On
22
December 20, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff’s amended motion to compel for failing to meet his
23
burden and as procedurally defective. Doc. 68. In this current motion, Plaintiff still has not met his
24
burden on his motion to compel. In this instance, Plaintiff moves to compel the production of responses,
25
interrogatories and documents which he asserts that he has served on Defendants. Doc. 77. Plaintiff’s
26
motion to compel simply describes what discovery Plaintiff asserts he has requested from Defendants.
27
Id.
28
Analysis
When bringing a motion to compel discovery responses, the moving party shall set forth each
Page 3 of 4
1
discovery request and the response that is at issue. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 34-250.3(c); E.D. Cal. Local
2
Rule 36-250(c). Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective because it does not provide Plaintiff’s
3
requests for discovery. Plaintiff fails to submit any proof that he has ever submitted a discovery request
4
to the Defendants and Plaintiff’s previous motions to compel discovery does not satisfy that requirement.
5
Moreover, in Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider order denying motion to compel, Plaintiff states that
6
Defendants answered his interrogatories and admissions but failed to turn over all information requested
7
in his request for production of documents. Mot. Recons. at 5-6, Doc. 75. However, in his motion to
8
reconsider or in his motion to compel, Plaintiff does not specifically list his requests or Defendants’
9
responses to his specific requests. See id.; see also Mot. Compel, Doc. 77. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion
10
to compel is denied.
11
IV.
Motion to Extend Discovery
12
The Court originally established a discovery deadline of November 30, 2011. Doc. 50. the Court
13
has twice extended the discovery deadline, from January 16, 2012 to March 16, 2012. Docs. 64, 71. This
14
action has been proceeding since June 13, 2005, and Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
15
on March 16, 2012. Docs. 1, 79. Plaintiff does not state good cause to further extend the discovery
16
deadline. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88
17
(9th Cir. 2002).
18
V.
Conclusion and Order
19
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
20
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider order denying motion to compel is DENIED;
21
2.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED; and
22
3.
Plaintiff’s motion to further extend the discovery deadline is DENIED.
23
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
Dated:
7j8cce
April 13, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28
Page 4 of 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?