Griffin v. Johnson et al

Filing 167

ORDER Denying 111 Motion to Compel Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin to Provide Responses to Interrogatories as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/11/17. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN, Case No. 1:13-CV-01599-LJO-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AS MOOT A. JOHNSON, et al., 16 (ECF No. 111) Defendants. 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 21 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before 22 the Court is a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to four sets of interrogatories 23 propounded by Defendants Johnson, Gonzales, Busch and Munoz. 24 opposition and no reply were filed. (ECF No. 111.) No 25 On August 3, 2016, Defendants Johnson, Gonzales, Busch and Munoz each propounded a 26 set of interrogatories on Plaintiff. (ECF No. 111-1, Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were due on or 27 before September 20, 2016. (ECF No. 111-2 at p. 2.) However, as of the filing of the motion to 28 compel on September 30, 2016, Plaintiff had not served responses to Defendants’ interrogatories. 1 1 (Id.) Therefore, Defendants requested an order compelling Plaintiff to serve his responses. 2 Although Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion to compel, he submitted a 3 response to a motion for sanctions filed by Defendants Ross, Sexton, Smith, Thor and Valdez. 4 (ECF No. 133.) According to that response, as of November 7, 2016, Plaintiff had already 5 responded in writing to interrogatories from Defendants Busch, Johnson, Munoz and Gonzales. 6 (Id. at p. 6.) 7 Defendants Gonzales and Busch in support of his opposition to their motions for summary 8 judgment.1 (ECF No. 147, Exs. 2 and 4.) Additionally, Plaintiff filed his responses to interrogatories propounded by 9 Based on the record before the Court, it appears that Plaintiff has served responses to the 10 interrogatories at issue. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel is HEREBY DENIED as 11 moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: /s/ Barbara September 11, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Based on the exhibits, the responses reportedly were served on October 25, 2016. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?