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