Nible v. Knowles, et al.

Filing 63

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 56 Motion to Compel; Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant Due within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/9/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

WILLIAM NIBLE,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01716-DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL (DOC. 56)

v.
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT
DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13

/

14
15

Order

16

Plaintiff William Nible (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

17

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

19

on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant E. Flores for violation of the First

20

Amendment.

21

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel, filed June 13, 2011. Doc. 56.

22

No opposition was timely filed. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), the matter is submitted.

23

I.

24

Motion To Compel
Defendant seeks to compel answers to ten special interrogatories. Defendant served these

25

interrogatories on March 10, 2011. Terhorst Decl, Ex. A. Plaintiff did not serve answers to the

26

interrogatories. Id.

27
28

Interrogatory No. 1: Please state all facts which support your contention that defendant E.
FLORES violated your civil or constitutional rights.
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Interrogatory No. 2: Please identify each of your “civil” or “constitutional” rights that you
contend was violated by defendant E. FLORES.
Interrogatory No. 3: Please describe each incident involving defendant E. FLORES that
you contend constituted a violation of your civil or constitutional rights.
Interrogatory No. 4: Please state all facts that support your contention that you sustained
injury or damage as a result of defendant E. FLORES’ acts or omissions.
Interrogatory No. 5: Please state all facts in support of your contention that you exhausted
administrative remedies with regard to your claims against defendant E. FLORES.
Interrogatory No. 6: Please identify all documents that support your contention that you
exhausted administrative remedies with regard to your claims against defendant E. FLORES.
Interrogatory No. 7: Please identify all documents that support your contention that
defendant E. FLORES violated your civil or constitutional rights.
Interrogatory No. 8: Please identify all documents that support your contention that you
suffered injury or harm as result of the purported acts or omissions of defendant E. FLORES.
Interrogatory No. 9: Please identify all witnesses who you intend to call at the time of trial
to support your contention that defendant E. FLORES violated your civil or constitutional rights.

17

Interrogatory No. 10: Please identify all witnesses who you intend to call at the time of

18

trial to support your contention that you suffered injury or damage as a result of the purported

19

acts or omissions of defendant E. FLORES.

20

Defendant contends that the interrogatories are all relevant for the purposes of discovery.

21

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s interrogatories. Def’s

22

Mot. Compel, Terhorst Decl. ¶ 2.

23

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

24

party’s claim or defense . . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the

25

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.

26

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The responding party is obligated to respond to the interrogatories to the

27

fullest extent possible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with

28

specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). The responding party shall use common sense and reason.
2

1

E.g., Collins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 06-2466-CM-DJW, 2008 WL 1924935, *8 (D. Kan.

2

Apr. 30, 2008). A responding party is not generally required to conduct extensive research in

3

order to answer an interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made. L.H. v.

4

Schwarzenegger, No. S-06-2042 LKK GGH, 2007 WL 2781132, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2007).

5

Further, the responding party has a duty to supplement any responses if the information sought is

6

later obtained or the response provided needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1).

7

Defendant’s interrogatories are clearly relevant for purposes of discovery. Plaintiff’s

8

failure to respond is not excused.1 Plaintiff will be required to answer each interrogatory, and to

9

serve his answers on Defendant within thirty (30) days of this order

10

II.

Conclusion And Order

11

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

Defendant’s motion to compel, filed June 13, 2011, is GRANTED; and

13

2.

Plaintiff is to serve his answers to Defendant’s interrogatories within thirty (30)
days from the date of service of this order.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 9, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In other motions, Plaintiff expressed difficulty with being able to photocopy certain
documents to respond to Defendant’s interrogatories. By separate order, the Court informed
Plaintiff that answers to interrogatories are not the same as production of documents, and that
Plaintiff need only list the names of the responsive documents. Order 3:2-11, Doc. 58.
3