Williams v. Phillips
ORDER DENYING 62 Motion to Compel Verification, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 03/02/2012. (Martin-Gill, S)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:10-cv-00131 AWI JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL VERIFICATION
On January 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Phillips to submit verifications
related to Defendant’s Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production, Set One and
Supplemental Requests for Admission, Set One, propounded by Plaintiff. (Doc. 62). Defendant Phillips
objected to Plaintiff’s request to compel the verifications on the following grounds: 1) the requested
verification for the Interrogatory was previously sent to Plaintiff on December 27, 2011 and 2) Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 36, do not require “verifications” for responses to production requests
and requests for admission, respectively. (Doc. 64). Defendant filed a Notice of Errata on January 30,
2012 in which he attached a copy of the verification sent to Plaintiff on December 27, 2011 which was
erroneously omitted from the Opposition filed on January 26, 2012. (Doc. 65-2 at 16).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g) sets forth the requirements for signing discovery
responses. It states in relevant part, “every discovery . . . response . . . must be signed by at least one
attorney of record in the attorney’s own name–or by the party personally, if unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. Rule 26(g). While Rule 33 specifically requires that the person who “makes” the answers sign them,
Rule 34 (governing production requests) and Rule 36 (governing requests for admissions) do not contain
that same language regarding the signature. However, as stated in Rule 26(g), Rule 36 requires the
discovery response be signed by the party or its attorney. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 36(a)(3). By signing the
response, an attorney or party certifies that to the best of the person’s “knowledge, information, and
belief formed after a reasonable inquiry,” the response is “complete and correct as of the time it is
made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(g).
Here, Defendants declare that Defendant Phillips sent his verification to his Responses to
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to Plaintiff on December 27, 2011. (Doc. 64 and 65). Defendants also
attached a copy of the verification sent to Plaintiff. (See Doc. 65-2 at 16). Further, Defendant’s have
satisfied the signature requirement in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) and 36, as both Defendant’s Responses to
Requests for Production, Set One, and Supplemental Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One,
are signed by the attorney of record, Matthew Ross Wilson. (Doc. 62 at 7 and 25.) Given that the
verification Plaintiff requested has been delivered to him and Defendant has complied with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(g), Plaintiff’s need for the requested documents no longer need to be compelled.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s January 9, 2012 motion to compel a
verification for Defendant’s Response to Interrogatories is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s request to
compel verifications for Defendant’s Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, and Defendant’s
Supplemental Response to Request for Admission, Set One are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2012
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?