Dixon v. Harrington et al

Filing 70

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 64 Motion to Compel, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/20/18. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

TRADELL M. DIXON,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

Case No. 1:13-cv-00165-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL
(ECF NO. 64)

M. ARMAS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

Tradell M. Dixon (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

21

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case now proceeds

22

on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, which was filed on January 14, 2015. (ECF No. 9).

23

After screening Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, the Court found that Plaintiff stated a

24

cognizable claim against Defendant Armas for failure to protect Plaintiff and against Defendants

25

Flippo and Triesch for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but stated

26

no other cognizable claim. (ECF Nos. 12, 15, & 18).

27

On March 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant Armas to provide further

28

discovery responses. (ECF No. 64). On March 19, 2018, defendant Armas filed his opposition to
1

1
2

the motion. (ECF No. 67). Plaintiff’s motion to compel is now before the Court.
II.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

3

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

4

party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of

5

the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant

6

information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and

7

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R.

8

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Furthermore, discoverable information “need not be admissible in evidence.”

9

Id.

10

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a), an interrogatory may relate to any

11

matter that may be inquired into under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), and “[a]n

12

interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates

13

to fact or the application of law to fact….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). “Each interrogatory must, to

14

the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath,” Fed. R.

15

Civ. P. 33(b)(3). If a responding party does object, “[t]he grounds for objecting… must be stated

16

with specificity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). “The responding party shall use common sense and

17

reason in its responses….” Johnson v. Cate, No. 1:10-CV-02348-LJO, 2014 WL 1419816, at *2

18

(E.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2014). A party answering interrogatories “cannot limit his answers to matters

19

within his own knowledge and ignore information immediately available to him or under his

20

control.” Essex Builders Group, Inc. v. Amerisure Insurance Co., 230 F.R.D. 682, 685 (M.D. Fla.

21

2005) (quoting Continental Illinois Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Caton, 136 F.R.D. 682, 684

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(D.Kan.1991)). “In general, a responding party is not required ‘to conduct extensive research in
order to answer an interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made.’” Gorrell v.
Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 629, 632 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Haney v. Saldana, No. 1:04-CV05935AWI SMS, 2010 WL 3341939, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2010)). “If a party cannot furnish
details, he should say so under oath, say why and set forth the efforts he used to obtain the
information. He cannot plead ignorance to information that is from sources within his control.”
Milner v. Nat'l Sch. of Health Tech., 73 F.R.D. 628, 632 (E.D. Pa. 1977). “However, where the
2

1

answer states that no record exists, the court cannot compel the impossible. Therefore, a sworn

2

answer indicating a lack of knowledge and no means of obtaining knowledge is not

3

objectionable.” Id. at 632-33 (internal citations omitted). The responding party has a duty to

4

supplement any responses if the information sought is later obtained or the response provided

5

needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).

6

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party seeking discovery may

7

move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8

37(a)(3)(B).

9

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “It is well established

10

that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any

11

objection.” Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992).

The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or

12

“District courts have ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of

13

litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606,

14

616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th

15

Cir. 2011)).

16

III.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

17

The deadline for filing motions to compel was December 27, 2017. (ECF No. 58, p. 3).

18

Plaintiff filed his motion on March 8, 2018. Plaintiff has not shown diligence in pursuing this

19

information in the time provided by the schedule. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion did not comply

20

with the Court’s Scheduling Order and will be denied for that reason.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

While Plaintiff requests additional time to file his motion, Plaintiff has not provided good
cause for relief from the deadline. According to Plaintiff, he needs more time because defendant
Armas was added to the discovery process after the other defendants. (ECF No. 64, pgs. 1-2).
While Plaintiff is correct, the Court already provided for additional time for discovery by and
regarding defendant Armas. (ECF No. 58). Plaintiff has not provided any explanation as to why
this additional time was not sufficient. The Court also held a discovery and status conference on
January 24, 2018, and Plaintiff did not mention needing additional time for discovery.
While the Court could deny the motion on this basis alone, the Court has also reviewed
3

1

the discovery requests underlying the motion to compel, and will also deny Plaintiff’s motion

2

because Plaintiff has not shown that further responses should be compelled. Plaintiff asks that

3

defendant Armas be ordered to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories 1-9, 11-13,

4

and 15. (ECF No. 64, p. 32). However, the Court has reviewed Defendant’s objections and has

5

found his objections to be valid and his responses to be legally adequate. (ECF No. 64, pgs. 19-

6

31; ECF No. 67). As defendant Armas points out, some of Plaintiff’s requests are not relevant to

7

this case (such as interrogatory 8). Others interrogatories are vague (such as interrogatories 3, 4,

8

and 9).

9

interrogatories (such as interrogatories 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, & 15).1 While Plaintiff seems to disagree

10

with the answers Defendant has given, it does not appear that Defendant Armas is withholding

11

discoverable information.

12

IV.

13
14

Additionally, defendant Armas responded adequately to a good portion of the

ORDER
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion

to compel Defendant’s discovery responses is DENIED.

15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17

Dated:

March 20, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

In his motion to compel, Plaintiff attempts to unilaterally change some of his
interrogatories. (ECF No. 64, p. 6). The Court notes that Plaintiff is not allowed to change his
interrogatories in this manner.
4