Zamaro v. Moonga et al

Filing 41

ORDER DENYING 38 Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/25/2010. (Marrujo, C)

(PC) Zamaro v. Moonga et al

Doc. 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Sammy Zamaro ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (Doc. #38.) Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel on September 9, 2010. (Doc. #39.) Plaintiff's motion to compel fails to identify how Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests are inadequate. Plaintiff's motion only states that he served a set of document production requests, a set of requests for admissions, and a set of interrogatories on Defendants. Plaintiff vaguely contends that Defendants "failed to comply fully with Plaintiffs[sic] request." (Plaintiffs[sic] Motion to Compel 1, ECF No. 38.) Plaintiff further contends that Defendants did not produce any documents in response to Plaintiff's requests and objected to all of the requests for admissions and requests for production of documents. When an opposing party objects to a discovery request, a motion to compel must demonstrate why the objections are improper. In his motion to compel, Plaintiff must set forth his requests and Defendants' responses and present specific arguments in support of his contention that Defendants' 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SAMMY ZAMARO, Plaintiff, v. G. MOONGA, et al., Defendants. /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00580-SKO PC ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. 38)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

responses are inadequate. Although Plaintiff has attached copies of his requests and Defendants' responses to his motion, Plaintiff has failed to present any argument as to how Defendants' responses are inadequate. The Court will not review each discovery request and each response and attempt to determine whether each response is sufficient. Further, it would impose an undue burden on the Defendants to require them to file an opposition that defends each response and the objections they have raised in response to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how Defendants' responses are inadequate or why the objections to Plaintiff's discovery requests are improper. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ie14hj October 25, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2