Thomas v. Razo, et al.

Filing 29

ORDER Granting Defendants' Motion to Compel 28 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 7/12/12. Plaintiff's Answers to Discovery Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
ROBERT THOMAS,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-GBC (PC)

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL

10
v.
11

Doc. 28
J. RAZO, et al.,

12

PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY
DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Defendants.
13

/

14
15 I.

Procedural History

16

On November 22, 2010, Plaintiff Robert Thomas (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding

17 pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 8,
18 2011, the Court ordered this action to proceed on Plaintiff’s cognizable Eighth Amendment
19 excessive force claim against Defendants Razo, Moreno, Brown, Holguin, Vera, and Vasquez. Doc.
20 8. On May 7, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and requests
21 for production of documents. Doc. 28. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. This matter is deem
22 submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
23 II.

Motion To Compel

24

On December 14, 2011, Defendant Razo served Plaintiff with the first sets of interrogatories

25 and requests for production of documents. See Mot. Compel, Coleman Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Doc. 28.
26 Defendants have not received any responses to the discovery requests. Id. On April 24, 2012, defense
27 counsel sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter informing him that she had not yet received his
28 responses to either the interrogatories or requests for production of documents, which were due in
Page 1 of 3

1 late January 2012. Id. ¶ 5. In the letter, Plaintiff was informed that if he did not respond to the
2 outstanding discovery by May 4, 2012, Defendants would have to file a motion to compel. Id.
3 Plaintiff did not respond to the letter, or to the discovery requests, and now more than four months
4 have passed since he was served with the requests. Id. ¶ 7.
5

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

6 party’s claim or defense . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery
7 appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8 26(b)(1). The responding party is obligated to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest extent
9 possible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ.
10 P. 33(b)(4). A responding party is not generally required to conduct extensive research in order to
11 answer an interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made. L.H. v. Schwarzenegger,
12 2007 WL 2781132, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2007). Further, the responding party has a duty to
13 supplement any responses if the information sought is later obtained or the response provided needs
14 correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1).
15

Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production of documents are relevant for

16 purposes of discovery. Plaintiff’s failure to respond is not excused. Plaintiff will be required to
17 answer each interrogatory and request for production of documents and to serve his answers on
18 Defendants within a timely manner.
19 III.

Sanctions

20

Defendants request sanctions against Plaintiff for his noncompliance. Mot. Compel at 6, Doc.

21 28. The Court declines to issue a sanction for non-compliance with the interrogatories and requests
22 for production of documents until after the issuance of this order commanding compliance. See
23 Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 494 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding corporation
24 subject to subpoena could not be sanctioned in absence of enforcement order).
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //
Page 2 of 3

1 IV.

Conclusion and Order

2

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

Defendants’ motion to compel, filed May 7, 2012, is GRANTED;

4

2.

Plaintiff is to serve his answers to Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for

5

production of documents within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this

6

order; and

7

3.

Defendants’ motion for sanctions, is DENIED, without prejudice.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9

Dated:
10 7j8cce

July 12, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3