Williams v. Phillips

Filing 74

ORDER DENYING 62 Motion to Compel Verification, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 03/02/2012. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SYLESTER WILLIAMS, 12 13 Case No. 1:10-cv-00131 AWI JLT (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION vs. (Doc. 62) 14 15 16 BOBBY PHILLIPS, Defendant. / 17 On January 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Phillips to submit verifications 18 related to Defendant’s Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production, Set One and 19 Supplemental Requests for Admission, Set One, propounded by Plaintiff. (Doc. 62). Defendant Phillips 20 objected to Plaintiff’s request to compel the verifications on the following grounds: 1) the requested 21 verification for the Interrogatory was previously sent to Plaintiff on December 27, 2011 and 2) Federal 22 Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 36, do not require “verifications” for responses to production requests 23 and requests for admission, respectively. (Doc. 64). Defendant filed a Notice of Errata on January 30, 24 2012 in which he attached a copy of the verification sent to Plaintiff on December 27, 2011 which was 25 erroneously omitted from the Opposition filed on January 26, 2012. (Doc. 65-2 at 16). 26 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g) sets forth the requirements for signing discovery 27 responses. It states in relevant part, “every discovery . . . response . . . must be signed by at least one 28 attorney of record in the attorney’s own name–or by the party personally, if unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. 1 1 P. Rule 26(g). While Rule 33 specifically requires that the person who “makes” the answers sign them, 2 Rule 34 (governing production requests) and Rule 36 (governing requests for admissions) do not contain 3 that same language regarding the signature. However, as stated in Rule 26(g), Rule 36 requires the 4 discovery response be signed by the party or its attorney. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 36(a)(3). By signing the 5 response, an attorney or party certifies that to the best of the person’s “knowledge, information, and 6 belief formed after a reasonable inquiry,” the response is “complete and correct as of the time it is 7 made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(g). 8 Here, Defendants declare that Defendant Phillips sent his verification to his Responses to 9 Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to Plaintiff on December 27, 2011. (Doc. 64 and 65). Defendants also 10 attached a copy of the verification sent to Plaintiff. (See Doc. 65-2 at 16). Further, Defendant’s have 11 satisfied the signature requirement in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) and 36, as both Defendant’s Responses to 12 Requests for Production, Set One, and Supplemental Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, 13 are signed by the attorney of record, Matthew Ross Wilson. (Doc. 62 at 7 and 25.) Given that the 14 verification Plaintiff requested has been delivered to him and Defendant has complied with Fed. R. Civ. 15 P. 26(g), Plaintiff’s need for the requested documents no longer need to be compelled. 16 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s January 9, 2012 motion to compel a 17 verification for Defendant’s Response to Interrogatories is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s request to 18 compel verifications for Defendant’s Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, and Defendant’s 19 Supplemental Response to Request for Admission, Set One are DENIED. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: March 2, 2012 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?