Singleton, Sr. v. Biter, et al.

Filing 63

ORDER Denying 54 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/9/14. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY SINGLETON, SR., 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 14 M.D. BITER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:12cv00043 AWI DLB (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (Document 54) Plaintiff Larry Singleton, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner. He is proceeding pro 18 se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is 19 proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants M. D. Biter and Sherri Lopez. 20 Defendants’ November 21, 2013, motion to dismiss based on exhaustion was recently 21 converted into a motion for summary judgment. Defendants have informed the Court that no 22 additional discovery is necessary. The Court is awaiting Plaintiff’s position on discovery related to 23 exhaustion. 24 The discovery deadline was February 24, 2014.1 Plaintiff filed the instant discovery motion on 25 February 27, 2014, though it was signed on February 24, 2014. Defendants did not oppose the motion. 26 27 28 1 If this action survives the exhaustion challenge, the Court will reschedule the action as necessary. 1 1 2 3 Plaintiff’s motion is entitled, “Motion for Order Compelling Discovery.” He requests that the Court order Defendants to Requests for Production of Documents Numbers 1-5. He states that he has not received “any documents.” Mot. 1. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 The Court has previously explained to Plaintiff that a motion to compel must contain certain information. Specifically, 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. E.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 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. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4. Here, although Plaintiff identifies Requests for Production Numbers 1-5, he does not provide any further information other than to state that he has not received any documents. The Court cannot 17 determine whether Defendants’ refusal to produce documents is meritorious without additional 18 information from Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not set forth the documents at issue, Defendants’ objections 19 20 and/or responses and why he believes he is entitled to the documents. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Dennis May 9, 2014 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?