Goolsby v. Holland, et al.

Filing 45

ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's 26 Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 03/17/2016. (14-Day Deadline; 30-Day Deadline and 60-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

KIMBERLY HOLLAND,

15

Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01100-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION TO COMPEL
AND FOR SANCTIONS
(ECF No. 26)

17
18
19

I.

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

20

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Kimberly Holland

21

for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‘s motion to

22

compel discovery and request for sanctions. (ECF No. 26.) Defendant opposed the motion, (ECF No.

23

31), and Plaintiff replied to Defendant‘s opposition, (ECF No. 33). The motion is deemed submitted.

24

Local Rule 230(l).

25

Before the Court issued this order, Defendant filed a motion to stay discovery in this matter.

26

(ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff‘s opposition to that motion is not yet due, and the Court has not yet determined

27

whether any stay of discovery is appropriate in this matter. If the Court finds any stay is appropriate, it

28

will address whether any deadlines in this order are affected at that time. Otherwise, full and timely
1

1

compliance by the parties with this order is expected. Any request for an extension of time of any

2

deadline set in this order must be filed before the relevant deadline has expired and must be supported

3

by good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

4

II.

Motion to Compel

5

Plaintiff‘s motion to compel concerns Defendant‘s responses to Plaintiff‘s first set of requests

6

for production (―RFP‖), and responses to Plaintiff‘s second set of discovery, which included a set of

7

requests for admission, interrogatories, and additional requests for production. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff

8

first argues that Defendant‘s responses to some of his first set of RFPs were insufficient. Plaintiff

9

wrote a letter to Defendant attempting to meet and confer on that dispute, (Id. at 36), but received no

10

response. Furthermore, Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff‘s second set of discovery requests by

11

the time he filed his motion, which was well after the due date.

12

Defendant then sought an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff‘s motion to compel. In

13

support, defense counsel submitted a declaration stating that he did not receive Plaintiff‘s meet and

14

confer letter or the second set of discovery requests until Plaintiff filed and served his motion to

15

compel, which attached copies of both. (ECF No. 27, at p. 2). Defendant sought time to attempt to

16

resolve the discovery dispute with Plaintiff by responding to the letter and discovery requests. The

17

Court granted Defendant‘s request, (ECF No. 30), and Defendant supplemented her previous

18

responses to Plaintiff‘s first set of RFPS, (ECF No. 31-1, pp. 19-21), and responded to Plaintiff‘s

19

second set of discovery, (id. at pp. 4-17).

20

In Plaintiff‘s reply, he argues that Defendant‘s responses to RFPs ##6-10, 16 and 17 from his

21

first set of discovery requests, as supplemented, are still deficient. Plaintiff further argues that

22

Defendant‘s responses to some of his requests in his second set of discovery requests are also

23

deficient. He seeks an order compelling a further response to each of these discovery requests.

24

A.

Legal Standards

25

A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce and

26

permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in

27

the responding party‘s possession, custody or control: any designated documents or tangible things.

28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). ―Property is deemed within a party‘s ‗possession, custody, or control‘ if the
2

1

party has actual possession, custody, or control thereof or the legal right to obtain the property on

2

demand.‖ Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309945, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007) (citing In re Bankers

3

Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995)); accord Bovarie v. Schwarzenegger, 2011 WL 719206, at

4

*4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011); Evans v. Tilton, 2010 WL 1136216, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010).
A party may also ―serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the

5
6

pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts,

7

the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described

8

documents.‖ Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). Rule 36 further provides:
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in
detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial
must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith
requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the
answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The
answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason
for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made
reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain
is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.

9
10
11
12
13
14

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).

16

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel

17

bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, No.

18

CIV S–10–2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan.13, 2012); Womack v. Virga, No.

19

CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011); Mitchell v. Felker,

20

No. CV 08–119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep.29, 2010). This requires the moving

21

party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for

22

each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party‘s

23

objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3;

24

Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2. However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage

25

discovery and notwithstanding these procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigant.

26

Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor

27

Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

28

///
3

1

B.

2

Before addressing the disputed responses to Plaintiff‘s first set of RFPs, the Court will address

3

Plaintiff‘s request to compel responses to certain requests in his second set of discovery. (ECF No. 33,

4

pp. 1, 3-6.) Since these responses were served after Plaintiff‘s motion to compel was filed, Defendants

5

have had no opportunity to respond to Plaintiff‘s arguments concerning the second set of discovery

6

requests. His specific arguments that some of those responses were insufficient were raised for the first

7

time in his reply brief.

8
9

Discussion

―It is inappropriate to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief‖ Association
of Irritated Residents v. C & R Vanderham Dairy, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1089 (E.D. Cal. 2006). The

10

briefing on Plaintiff‘s motion to compel the responses to the first set of RFPs show why this rule is

11

particularly important to follow here. Plaintiff‘s motion presents specific issues, Defendant responded

12

with precise justifications and explanations for his objections and response, and Plaintiff replied with

13

arguments as to why the objections and/or response are nevertheless insufficient or improper. In

14

addition, the process of meeting and conferring, voluntarily supplementing responses, and fully

15

briefing the motion to compel, clarified and narrowed the dispute.

16

As a result, in these circumstances the Court does not find it to be an efficient use of judicial

17

resources to address Plaintiff‘s challenges to Defendant‘s responses to the second set of discovery

18

requests on the merits at this time. Plaintiff‘s motion to compel with respect to Defendant‘s responses

19

to his second set of discovery requests is DENIED without prejudice. Instead, Defendant SHALL meet

20

and confer with Plaintiff, within thirty (30) days of service of this order, regarding the matters raised

21

in Plaintiff‘s reply brief concerning Defendant‘s responses to Plaintiff‘s second set of discovery

22

requests. That meet and confer may be done in writing. If the parties are unable to resolve the disputed

23

responses, Plaintiff may file a request that his motion to compel further responses to his second set of

24

discovery requests be renewed, within sixty (60) days of service of this order.

25
26

1.

Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production

RFP #6: Plaintiff requests defendant Kimberly Holland produce ALL Housing Unit

27

movement log book entries for plaintiff between October 1, 2011 and April 1, 2012 at California

28

Correctional Institution.
4

1

Response: In addition to several objections, Defendant responded that, ―[t]o the extent the

2

request asks for 114-As, those documents are available to Plaintiff if he was housed in Ad-Seg during

3

that time. Therefore, no documents will be provided.‖

4

Arguments: Plaintiff clarified in his motion that he seeks log entries from the record book

5

noting the movements of inmates in his housing unit, not 114-As. (ECF No. 26, p. 3.) In response,

6

Defendant has dropped all objections except that (1) the request is not relevant or reasonably

7

calculated to obtain admissible evidence, and (2) the request is overbroad. (ECF No. 31, p. 2.)

8

Defendant specifically argues that the location of the conversations that Plaintiff alleges took place is

9

not relevant, which is what he indicated he needed the log entries to discover. Defendant further

10

argues that Plaintiff‘s request for six months of daily log movement records would be time-consuming

11

and unduly burdensome to produce, because it would require reviewing and redacting entries not

12

related to Plaintiff for privacy and security purposes. Defendant further contends that to the extent the

13

entries are relevant, Plaintiff only requires certain log entries from certain dates. Thus, at a minimum,

14

Plaintiff should be required to limit his request to log entries from certain relevant dates.

15

Plaintiff argues that the log entries are relevant to showing who came to see him and any

16

incidents involving him, to show other inmates who were nearby and may have overheard the

17

conversations at issue, and to help him prove that he was present when and where he alleges the

18

conversations happened, in case these issues are disputed. (ECF No. 33, p. 2.) Plaintiff does not

19

address Defendant‘s contentions regarding the unduly burdensome nature of his request.

20

Ruling: Plaintiff‘s motion to compel this response is GRANTED IN PART. The log entries

21

Plaintiff seeks may contain relevant corroborating information concerning the conversations he alleges

22

took place. However, due to the current scope of Plaintiff‘s current request, the relevance of the

23

information sought is significantly outweighed by the burden to Defendant to review, appropriately

24

redact, and produce all daily log entries from the period Plaintiff requested, from October 1, 2011 to

25

April 1, 2012. Therefore, Plaintiff‘s request must be narrowed to the relevant dates for the

26

conversations at issue. To the extent he argues he is entitled to log entries concerning inmates other

27

than himself, that information was not requested in his request for production, and Defendants are not

28

required to provide it.
5

1

Accordingly, Plaintiff SHALL serve Defendant a narrowed request for log entries related to

2

him for the specific dates on which the conversations at issue in this matter occurred, within fourteen

3

(14) days of the date of service of this order. Defendants SHALL provide a supplemental response to

4

Plaintiff‘s request, as narrowed, within thirty (30) days of service of Plaintiff‘s narrowed request.

5

RFP #7: Plaintiff requests defendant Kimberly Holland produce ALL visiting staff sign in log

6

books for housing unit 5 on yard 4B at California Correctional Institution between January 1, 2012

7

and April 1, 2012.

8
9
10

Response: In addition to various objections, Defendant responded that ―Plaintiff has access to
the Security Housing Unit logs, which are the 114-As and therefore no documents will be produced.‖
Arguments: Similarly to the above request, Plaintiff clarified in his motion that he is not

11

seeking 114-As, but seeks log entries from the record book noting visits to him by staff to the housing

12

unit. (ECF No. 26, p. 4.) As with the above, Plaintiff explains that the relevance of these documents is

13

to seek information that can corroborate his allegations of certain conversations with the staff.

14

Defendant has dropped all objections except that the request is irrelevant and overbroad. (ECF

15

No. 31, p. 3-4.) Defendant admits that these log entries may show certain staff were in Plaintiff‘s

16

housing unit on dates he alleges conversations occurred, but argues that this would be weak evidence

17

that the conversations actually happened as Plaintiff alleged. Further, Defendant objects that the

18

request is overbroad and unduly burdensome since it requires Defendant to produce months of daily

19

entries that are irrelevant to the alleged conversations at issue.

20

Ruling: Plaintiff‘s motion to compel this response is GRANTED IN PART, for similar

21

reasons explained above in regards to RFP #6. Defendant admits the log entries Plaintiff seeks may

22

have some relevancy to Plaintiff‘s allegations, and the argument that the information may not end up

23

being strong evidence in Plaintiff‘s favor does not negate that the information is relevant and

24

discoverable. However, to the extent Plaintiff seeks log entries for dates on which no alleged

25

conversations occurred, those log entries have no relevancy to this matter, and it is overly burdensome

26

to require Defendant to review and produce them.

27

Accordingly, Plaintiff SHALL serve Defendant a narrowed request for log entries related to

28

him for the specific dates on which the conversations at issue occurred, within fourteen (14) days of
6

1

the date of service of this order. Defendants SHALL provide a supplemental response to Plaintiff‘s

2

request, as narrowed, within thirty (30) days of service of Plaintiff‘s narrowed request.

3

RFP #8: Plaintiff requests defendant Kimberly Holland produce a complete copy of ALL

4

MISSION STATEMENTS in effect at California Correctional Institution between November, 2010

5

and April 1, 2012.

6

Response: In addition to some objections, Defendant responded that ―a reasonable

7

investigation has been made and no documents have been uncovered. Responding Party reserves the

8

right to supplement this response.‖

9

Arguments: Plaintiff argues that the mission statements are relevant to showing whether

10

Plaintiff‘s housing placement was appropriate based on his case factors, because the mission statement

11

will show what level of prison CCI is and what level inmates it can house. (ECF No. 26, p. 5.) Plaintiff

12

further argues that his request includes a November 18, 2010 memorandum changing the mission

13

statement that is relevant to his case, based on a reference to a ―mission change per memorandum

14

dated 11/18/10‖ in his file. Plaintiff reiterates that if he has incorrectly described such memorandum as

15

a ―mission statement,‖ he still seeks, at a minimum, the November 18, 2010 memorandum referenced

16

in his file.

17

Defendant in response objects that the general statements of overall claims and values of

18

CDCR that comprise the mission statements are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this matter,

19

and contrary to Plaintiff‘s contention, a November 18, 2010 memorandum changing the CDCR‘s

20

mission statement does not exist.

21

Ruling: Plaintiff‘s motion to compel this response is DENIED. The mission statements

22

Plaintiff requested are not relevant to his allegations of a retaliatory transfer, or any defenses, in this

23

matter. Plaintiff‘s specific request for a November 18, 2010 memorandum is not encompassed in his

24

original RFP, and Plaintiff cannot graft it into this request through his motion to compel. Moreover,

25

that memorandum does not appear relevant to Plaintiff‘s claim here. Plaintiff alleges that his

26

retaliatory transfer occurred on or about March 27, 2012, and Plaintiff has not shown how this

27

November 18, 2010 memorandum concerning some general policy relates to why he was transferred

28

in 2012.
7

RFP #9: Plaintiff requests defendant Kimberly Holland produce a copy of any and all

1
2

TRANSFER WAITLIST of validated inmates at California Correctional Institution that existed

3

between January 1, 2011 and April 1, 2012.
Response (as supplemented): In addition to numerous objections, Defendant responded that

4
5

the transfer waitlists requested no longer exists.
Ruling: Plaintiff concedes in his reply that Defendant cannot be compelled to produce

6
7

documents that no longer exist. (ECF No. 33, pp. 2, 5.) Consequently, Plaintiff‘s motion to compel

8

this response is DENIED.
RFP #10: Plaintiff requests defendant Kimberly Holland produce all documents that show

9
10

when plaintiff attended the law library at CCI-SHU 4B yard between December 1, 2011 and April 1,

11

2012.

12

Response: In addition to several objections, the Defendant responded that ―to the extent

13

Plaintiff is requesting 114-A logs, those documents are equally available to him through a request to

14

his counselor. Therefore, no documents will be produced.‖

15

Arguments: Similarly to RFPs ## 6-7, Plaintiff argues that the library log entries he seeks are

16

relevant to showing that certain conversations happened while he was in the law library, and that he

17

was in the law library when he alleges an ICC meeting took place without him. (ECF No. 26, p. 8;

18

ECF No. 33, p. 3.) Defendant argues the log entries Plaintiff seeks are not relevant, because she does

19

not dispute that Plaintiff was not present at the ICC meeting he alleges took place without him. (ECF

20

No. 31, p. 6.) Further, Defendant argues that the request for daily log entries is overbroad, since

21

Plaintiff only cites a few specific dates for which he needs the entries.

22

Ruling: Plaintiff‘s motion to compel this response is GRANTED IN PART, for similar

23

reasons explained above in regards to RFPs ## 6-7. Defendant admits the library log entries Plaintiff

24

seeks for a few dates may have some relevancy to his allegations. However, the request is overly

25

burdensome to the extent it seeks entries for dates that have no relevancy here.

26
27

Accordingly, Plaintiff SHALL serve Defendant a narrowed request for library log entries
concerning him for the specific dates on which the library visits at issue occurred, within fourteen (14)

28
8

1

days of the date of service of this order. Defendants SHALL provide a supplemental response to

2

Plaintiff‘s request, as narrowed, within thirty (30) days of service of Plaintiff‘s narrowed request.
RFP #16: Plaintiff requests defendant Kimberly Holland produce ALL documents that

3
4

concern the building and requests to build 72 Inmate Exercise Modules (IEM) at California

5

Correctional Institution 4B SHU yard in 2011 and 2012.
RFP #17: Plaintiff requests defendant Kimberly Holland produce ALL documents that

6
7

describe the reason for building 72 Inmate Exercise Modules (IEM) at California Correctional

8

Institution on 4 SHU 4B yard in 2012.
Response (Identical for both RFPs): In addition to objections on vagueness, relevancy, and

9
10

other grounds, and the assertion of the official information privilege, Defendant responded that ―[t]o

11

the extent that the requested documents are not protected by privilege, Responding Party states that no

12

documents have been recovered, but we reserve the right to supplement this response.‖
Arguments (Identical for both RFPs): Plaintiff argues that the information requested about

13
14

the IEMs is relevant because he alleges the IEMs were built at least in part as a result of a settlement

15

of one of his lawsuits, and that this was the motivating factor behind his retaliatory transfer. (ECF No.

16

26, p. 9; ECF No. 33, p. 3.) Defendants stand on their objections to vagueness and relevancy, arguing

17

the requests seek documents that are unrelated to this matter, such as construction bids, plans, funding,

18

and payment documents for the IEMs. (ECF No. 31, p. 7.) Further, Defendant argues Plaintiff has not

19

shown the relevance of any of the requested documents.
Ruling: Plaintiff‘s motion to compel these responses is GRANTED IN PART. The Court

20
21

agrees that RFP #16 is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant

22

evidence. However, RFP #17, which seeks only documents regarding the reason the IEMs were built

23

in 2012, is directly relevant to Plaintiff‘s claim that he was retaliated against for being at least part of

24

the reason the IEMs were built. Although Defendant states she has not yet ―recovered‖ such

25

information, it is not clear to the Court that the requested information either does not exist, or is not

26

within Defendant‘s possession, custody, or control. Nor has Defendant provided any privilege log to

27

allow the Court to determine whether the privilege objection should be sustained.

28

///
9

Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to supplement their response to RFP #17 by producing

1
2

the requested documents, producing a privilege log that describes responsive documents with

3

specificity and explains any concerns related to disclosure, or stating why the results of a reasonable

4

inquiry have not uncovered the documents requested. Defendants shall provide this supplemental

5

response within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order.

6

III.

Request for Sanctions
Plaintiff‘s motion also seeks that the Court sanction Defendant in the amount of $100.00 for

7
8

not responding to his second set of discovery requests, and for requiring him to file his motion to

9

compel. (ECF No. 26.) In his reply, although Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant responded to his

10

second set of discovery requests, he argues sanctions are still appropriate as related to those responses.

11

In particular, he argues that certain of Defendant‘s responses contradict each other, and are evidence

12

that Defendant has perjured herself, since the responses were signed under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff

13

further seeks sanctions in his reply up to and including default judgment.
Default judgment is not an appropriate sanction here. To determine whether a default judgment

14

15

is an appropriate sanction, courts look to five factors: ―(1) the public's interest in expeditious

16

resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party

17

seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

18

availability of less drastic sanctions.‖ Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482

19

F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2003)).

20

―This ‗test‘ in not mechanical. It provides the district court with a way to think about what to do, not a

21

set of conditions precedent for sanctions . . . .‖ Id.
With regard to Defendant‘s responses to Plaintiff‘s second set of discovery requests, the parties

22
23

have been directed to meet and confer further on that issue. Thus, the motion to compel was not

24

granted with regard to any of those requests. Nor has the Court determined that Defendant has

25

responded to any of those requests in bad faith, since it has not addressed those responses on the

26

merits.

27

Furthermore, as discussed above, the Court found some of Defendant‘s responses to Plaintiff‘s

28

first set of request for production were sufficient, and some objections were valid. The record does not
10

1

support a finding that Defendant acted in bad faith in responding to those requests either. Even though

2

Plaintiff has been granted some relief here and some responses must be supplemented, a default

3

judgment is an inappropriate sanction. The Court‘s need to manage its docket is not particularly

4

affected by this discovery dispute. See Allen v. Bayer Corp. (In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods.

5

Liab. Litig.), 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006). Further, Plaintiff has not shown any prejudice

6

resulting from Defendant‘s discovery responses other than some delay, and delay alone is generally

7

insufficient to warrant a default judgment. Adriana Int'l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th

8

Cir.1990). Finally, the Court has had no previous occasion to sanction or warn Defendant that a

9

default judgment is a possible sanction. Allen, 460 F.3d at 1228-29 (explaining that a court abuses its

10

discretion if it first imposes default judgment as a sanction without first considering whether less

11

drastic sanctions are adequate).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, the Court may apportion reasonable expenses where

12
13

a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). In this instance,

14

the Court does not find that an apportionment of expenses is just, as Plaintiff only prevailed in part on

15

four out of the seven disputed discovery responses at issue here. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not

16

incurred attorney fees nor has he shown he in fact incurred photocopying and mailing costs. See

17

Haney v. Saldana, No. 1:04–cv—05935–AWI–SMS, 2010 WL 3341939, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24,

18

2010) (lack of attorney fees, entitlement to free copies as indigent prisoner, and court‘s need to issue a

19

number of limiting instructions are circumstances under which an award of sanction to the plaintiff

20

would be unjust).

21

IV.

Conclusion and Order

22

For the reasons explained above, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

23

1.

24
25

Plaintiff‘s motion to compel and for sanctions, (ECF No. 26), is GRANTED IN PART

and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
a.

Plaintiff‘s motion to compel further responses to his second set of discovery

26

requests is DENIED, without prejudice. Defendant SHALL meet and confer with Plaintiff, within

27

thirty (30) days of service of this order, regarding the matters raised in Plaintiff‘s reply brief

28

concerning Defendant‘s responses to Plaintiff‘s second set of discovery requests. That meet and confer
11

1

may be done in writing. If the parties are unable to resolve the disputed responses, Plaintiff may file a

2

request that his motion to compel further responses to his second set of discovery requests be renewed,

3

within sixty (60) days of service of this order;
b.

4

With respect to Plaintiff‘s RFP #6, Plaintiff SHALL serve Defendant a

5

narrowed request for log entries related to him for the specific dates on which the conversations at

6

issue in this matter occurred, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order. Defendants

7

SHALL provide a supplemental response to Plaintiff‘s request, as narrowed, within thirty (30) days of

8

service of Plaintiff‘s narrowed request;
c.

9

With respect to Plaintiff‘s RFP #7, Plaintiff SHALL serve Defendant a

10

narrowed request for log entries related to him for the specific dates on which the conversations at

11

issue occurred, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order. Defendants SHALL

12

provide a supplemental response to Plaintiff‘s request, as narrowed, within thirty (30) days of service

13

of Plaintiff‘s narrowed request;

14

d.

With respect to Plaintiff‘s RFP #10, Plaintiff SHALL serve Defendant a

15

narrowed request for library log entries concerning him for the specific dates on which the library

16

visits at issue occurred, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order. Defendants

17

SHALL provide a supplemental response to Plaintiff‘s request, as narrowed, within thirty (30) days of

18

service of Plaintiff‘s narrowed request;
e.

19

Defendants are ordered to supplement their response to RFP #17 by producing

20

the requested documents, producing a privilege log that describes responsive documents with

21

specificity and explains any concerns related to disclosure, or stating why the results of a reasonable

22

inquiry have not uncovered the documents requested. Defendants shall provide this supplemental

23

response within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order;
f.

24

All other requests to compel further responses to Plaintiff‘s first set of

25

interrogatories are DENIED; and

26

///

27

///

28

///
12

1

2.

Plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED.

2
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

March 17, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13