Warner v. Cate et al

Filing 96

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Compel (ECF No. 90 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/27/2016. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

EARL WARNER,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW L. CATE, et al.,

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01146-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL
(ECF No. 90)

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(ECF Nos. 1 & 10.)

The matter

proceeds against Defendants Spradling, Davis (formerly McGaha), Walker, Fellows and
Prokop on an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim.
Previously, Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to file a motion to compel
discovery. (ECF No. 86.) In that order, Plaintiff was advised that his motion should
indicate “(1) which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, (2) which
of the defendant's responses are disputed, (3) why he believes the defendant's
responses are deficient, (4) why the defendant's objections are not justified, and (5) why

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action.”
Walker v. Karelas, 2009 WL 3075575, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2009); Brooks v.
Alameida, 2009 WL 331358, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009). Plaintiff was further advised
that failure to do so will be grounds for the denial of his motion.
On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel, in which he
seeks further responses from Defendants to his propounded discovery. (ECF No. 90.)
Review of this motion, however, reveals that Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s
directive regarding the motion’s contents. Though Plaintiff submits copies of his requests
for production of documents, his first set of interrogatories, and his first set of
admissions, he does not include any of the Defendants’ responses to his discovery
requests, let alone those that he deems deficient. See E.D. Local Rule 251(c) (“Each
specific interrogatory, deposition question or other item objected to, or concerning which
a protective order is sought, and the objection thereto, shall be reproduced in full.”) He
also fails to argue why he believes Defendants’ responses are deficient and/or
objections are unjustified. Plaintiff, of course, bears the burden of describing why the
Defendants’ particular responses are inadequate. See, e.g., Williams v. Flint, 2007 WL
2274520, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007) (“It is plaintiff's burden to describe why a
particular response is inadequate. It is not enough to generally argue that all responses
are incomplete.”). Without any identification of specific responses to specific requests
that Plaintiff deems deficient, his motion must be denied.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s November 23, 2015, motion
to compel (ECF No. 90) is DENIED.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:

January 27, 2016

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3