Hovanski v. King, et al.

Filing 24

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses 23 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/12/14: Thirty-Day Deadline.(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS DANIEL HOVANSKI,

12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00377-LJO-JLT (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

v.
(Doc. 23)

14
15

WALLACE,
Defendant.

16
Plaintiff, Thomas D. Hovanski, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
17
in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on the First Amended
18
Complaint against Defendant Lauren Wallace for violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
19
Fourteenth Amendment. (Docs. 10, 11.) On February 6, 2014, Defendant filed a notice of
20
motion and motion to compel discovery responses. (Doc. 23.) Defendant bases this motion to
21
compel on Plaintiff's complete failure to respond to the first sets of both her requests for
22
production of documents and special interrogatories. (Id.)
23
The Scheduling Order, which issued on October 16, 2013, provided a discovery cut-off
24
25

date of June 13, 2014 and required any motions to compel to be filed by that date as well. (Doc.

26

18.) That same order required all discovery requests to be served in accordance with Federal

27

Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 5 and Local Rule 135 and service of responses to written discovery

28
1

1

within 45 days after the request is served. (Id.) Defendant served her first set of requests for

2

production of documents on Plaintiff on October 25, 2013 and her first set of special

3

interrogatories was served on him on November 12, 2013. (Doc. 23-1, pp.1-2.) No responses

4
from Plaintiff were received to either set of discovery. (Id., at p. 2.)
5
6

Parties are entitled to seek discovery of "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

7

party's claim or defense. . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Each interrogatory must be answered by

8

the party to whom they are directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1). Failure to timely serve responses

9

waives objections to the interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).

10
11

Plaintiff's complete failure to respond to Defendant's first set of both her requests for
production of documents and special interrogatories has affected a waiver of any objections that

12
13
14

he might otherwise have raised. Defendant is entitled to response to her first set of requests for
production of documents as well as her first set of special interrogatories.

15

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1.

Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to her first set of

17

requests for production of documents and her first set of special

18

interrogatories, filed February 6, 2014 (Doc. 23), is GRANTED; and

19

2.

Within 30 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff is ordered to serve

20

responses to Defendant's first set of requests for production of documents

21

and her first set of special interrogatories, without objections.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 12, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2