Johnson v. Rodriguez

Filing 20

ORDER Granting Defendant's 19 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 04/07/14. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

LEONARD JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10
11

HUMBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant.

12
13

16
17
18
19

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00820-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
[ECF No. 19]

Plaintiff Leonard Johnson is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1983.
This action is proceeding against Defendant Humberto Rodriguez for excessive force in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel, filed February 25, 2014.
Plaintiff has not filed a response.

20

I.

21

DISCUSSION

22

A.

Motion to Compel Regarding Interrogatories and Production of Documents

23

On October 2, 2013, the Court issued a scheduling order opening discovery and setting June 2,

24

2014, as the deadline for the completion of all discovery. (ECF No. 17.) On October 3, 2013,

25

Defendant served Plaintiff with interrogatories and a requests for production of documents at

26

Plaintiff’s address of record with the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a), 34(a). Pursuant to the scheduling

27

order, Plaintiff had forty-five days within which to serve a response. (ECF No. 17.)

28
1

1

Plaintiff did not serve a response to Defendant’s discovery requests, and on January 8, 2014,

2

Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter requesting a response no later than January 23, 2014. (ECF No. 19,

3

Motion, Ex. 3.) Plaintiff did not respond to the letter. (ECF No. 19, Motion, Decl. of Lawrence

4

Braag, at ¶ 4.)
Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond to his interrogatories and request for

5
6

production of documents, without objection.

7

Plaintiff was obligated to respond to Defendant’s interrogatories and request for production of

8

documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b), 34(b)(2). Plaintiff failed to serve a response and he failed to file an

9

opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel shall be

10

GRANTED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). Plaintiff will be directed to file a response to the

11

interrogatories and production of documents, without objection, within thirty days from the date of

12

service of this order.1

13

II.

14

ORDER

15

Based on the foregoing,

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1.

Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED; and

18

2.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall serve
responses to Defendant’s discovery requests, without objection.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:

April 7, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27

1

Failure to timely object to discovery requests constitutes a waiver of objections. Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling
Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981); Woods v. Kraft
Foods, Inc., No. CV F 05-1587 LJO, 2006 WL 2724096, *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2006).

28
2