Rodgers v. Martin et al

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Plaintiff's 21 Motion to Compel Response to Second Set Interrogatories and for Sanctions, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/30/14. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
SYNRICO RODGERS,

Case No. 1:12-cv-01686-MJS (PC)

11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
C.C. MARTIN, et al.,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSE TO SECOND SET
INTERROGATORIES AND FOR
SANCTIONS

14
Defendants.

(ECF No. 21)

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff Synrico Rodgers, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds
against Defendants Martin and Blattel on claims of retaliation and deliberate indifference.
The case is in the discovery phase. The deadline to complete discovery is May 30, 2014.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s January 27, 2014 Motion to Compel Defendants’
response to Interrogatories Nos. 8-19 of his second set of interrogatories, including a
request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 that Defendants pay Plaintiff’s costs
incurred on this Motion. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff claims he submitted the Interrogatories on
December 9, 2013 and has not received answers.
I.

DISCOVERY STANDARDS
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se as a state prisoner challenging his conditions of
1

1

confinement. As a result, the parties are relieved of some requirements which would

2

otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith

3

prior to involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.

4

26(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 15 at ¶ 5.
Nonetheless, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

5
6

apply, and the discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith. Asea,

7

Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981). Parties may obtain

8

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or

9

defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the

10

subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information need

11

not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

12

discovery of admissible evidence. Id.
An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b),

13
14

and an interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or

15

contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2).

16

Parties are obligated to respond to interrogatories to the fullest extent possible under oath.

17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3).

18

II.

ANALYSIS

19

Plaintiff's Motion is incomplete and, as such, inadequate. Plaintiff does not

20

demonstrate proof of service of the interrogatories upon Defendants’ attorney or the date

21

and method thereof. “Discovery requests shall be served by the parties pursuant to Federal

22

Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and Local Rule 135 . . . .” (ECF No. 15 at ¶ 1.) A response to

23

properly served discovery is due forty-five days thereafter, (Id. at ¶ 2), extended three days

24

for service by mail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

25

Here, the Court is unable to determine from the information provided upon whom

26

Plaintiff served the interrogatories, when and how. It thus cannot tell if Defendants’

27

responses are in fact overdue.

28

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion shall be denied without prejudice to refiling with the
2

1

requisite supporting information and documentation. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions

2

likewise is denied without prejudice because the Motion to Compel fails. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

3

III.

ORDER
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants’ response to Set 2

4
5

Interrogatories Nos. 8-19 including request for monetary sanctions (ECF No. 21), is

6

DENIED without prejudice.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

21

January 30, 2014

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:

22

Michael J. Seng

12eob4

23
24
25
26
27
28
3