Green v. Chakotos et al
ORDER denying 49 Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/11/2014. (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:11-cv-01611 LJO DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
[ECF No. 49]
Plaintiff Ira Green (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint, filed on May 3, 2013, against Defendant Chakotos for a claim of
deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendant filed an answer to the SAC
on August 25, 2014, and the Court issued a scheduling order on August 26, 2014.
On October 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Defendants filed an
opposition to the motion on October 10, 2014. Plaintiff did not file a reply. The motion to compel is
deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant
to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted).
Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. (quotation marks omitted).
Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel bears
the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. See, e.g., Grabek v. Dickinson,
2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012). This requires the moving party to inform the Court which
discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the
information sought is relevant and why the responding party’s objections are not meritorious. Id., at
However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding
these procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigator. Therefore, to the extent
possible, the Court endeavors to resolve the motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of
Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d
625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).
Here, Defendant states Plaintiff has not yet served discovery on Defendant. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s motion is improper. Plaintiff is advised that he must first serve discovery requests on
Defendant and provide Defendant with an opportunity to respond to his requests before he can move
to compel responses.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 11, 2014
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?