Harris v. Calzetta et al

Filing 41

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 40 Motion to Compel without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/21/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
HENRY EUGENE HARRIS,

CASE NO. 1: 13-cv-001088-MJS

11
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DR. JUAN CALZETTA, et al.,

(ECF No. 40.)

Defendants.

15
16
17

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.) The action

20

proceeds on an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Defendant

21

Calzetta. (ECF No. 27.)

22

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s June 19, 2015 motion to compel (ECF No. 40.).

23

Defendant Calzetta has not filed a response and the time to do so has passed. The

24

motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

25

II.

MOTION TO COMPEL

26

A.

Legal Standard

27

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

28

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

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

discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or
defense, and for good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the
subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information
need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.
Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving
to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g.,
Grabek v. Dickinson, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Mitchell v.
Felker, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL
860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the moving party to inform the
court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each
disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why the responding
party's objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack v.
Virga, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011).
Courts in the Eastern District of California have required, “at a minimum, [that] the
moving party plaintiff has the burden of informing the court (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 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).
The court must limit discovery if the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs
its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). “In each instance [of discovery], the
determination whether . . . information is discoverable because it is relevant to the claims
or defenses depends on the circumstances of the pending action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
Advisory Committee's note (2000 Amendment) (Gap Report) (Subdivision (b)(1)).

28
2

1
2
3

All grounds for objection must be stated “with specificity.” See Mancia v.
Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 253 F.R.D. 354, 356 (D.Md. 2008) (boiler-plate objections
waived any legitimate objections responding party may have had).

4
5
6

The responding party has a duty to supplement any responses if the information
sought is later obtained or the response provided needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(e)(1)(A).

7

B.

8
9
10

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to produce various documents and records.
Plaintiff’s motion sets out the documents he is requesting, but he provides no report of
Defendant’s responses or objections.

11

C.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff’s Motion

Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is incomplete and, as such, inadequate. It is not clear
whether Plaintiff actually served on Defendant a request to produce this information
before filing this motion, if so, how Defendant responded, or, in any event, why Plaintiff
believes the requested information is discoverable. The Court obviously cannot evaluate
the propriety of a discovery request or response to it when neither are provided to the
Court for its review.
III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 40) is HEREBY

DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew his requests prior to the expiration of the
discovery deadline by providing a complete copy of the discovery requests and
responses, and explaining the manner in which the responses are believed to be
inadequate.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated:

August 21, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28
3