(PC) Spencer v. Milan
Filing
49
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 44 Motion to Compel as Procedurally Defective; ORDER DENYING Motion for Sanctions and Request for Extension of Discovery Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/17/2022. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
EDWARD B. SPENCER,
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL AS PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE
vs.
13
14
1:20-cv-00682-JLT-GSA-PC
RICHARD MILAN,
Defendant.
15
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
DISCOVERY DEADLINE
(ECF No. 44.)
16
17
18
19
20
I.
BACKGROUND
21
Edward B. Spencer (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
22
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds
23
against sole defendant Milam1 (“Defendant”) for subjecting Plaintiff to adverse conditions of
24
confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
25
On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and for sanctions, and requested
26
an extension of the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 44.) On November 14, 2022, Defendant filed
27
28
1
Sued as Milan.
1
1
an opposition to the motions. (ECF No. 48. ) The motion is now before the court. Local Rule
2
230(l).
3
II.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
4
Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may
5
move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ.
6
P. 37(a)(3) (B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or
7
incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have
8
‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule
9
of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting
10
Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). Generally, if the
11
responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel bears the burden of
12
demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV S–10–
13
2892 GGH P., 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02–cv–
14
05646–AWI–SMS (PC), 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the
15
moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to
16
compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why the
17
responding party’s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack v.
18
Virga, No. CIV S–11–1030 MCE EFB P., 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D.Cal. Dec. 21, 2011)
19
(emphasis added).
20
III.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS
21
Plaintiff requests the court to compel Defendant to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s
22
Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, which Plaintiff served on
23
August 22, 2022.
24
Plaintiff has submitted copies of his discovery requests and Defendant’s responses. (ECF
25
No. 44, Exhs. A & B.) Plaintiff states that his requests seek only relevant information, and that
26
Defendant responded with boilerplate and non-particular objections. Plaintiff alleges that on
27
October 14, 2022, he attempted to call the Supervising Deputy Attorney General by telephone to
28
meet and confer, to no avail.
2
1
Defendant has objected to each of Plaintiff’s discovery requests as vague and ambiguous,
2
and as seeking information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses of the parties in this
3
case.
4
Here, Plaintiff has not met his burden of informing the court why each disputed response
5
to his Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents is deficient. Plaintiff addresses
6
all fourteen disputed responses together, merely stating that Defendants made incomplete
7
responses. This is not sufficient to meet Plaintiff’s burden.
8
The court has reviewed Defendant’s Responses and finds that Defendant made boilerplate
9
objections, but also addressed each of Plaintiff’s Requests individually. Plaintiff has not
10
adequately addressed Defendant’s objections or Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff has not
11
requested relevant information. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be denied as
12
procedurally defective.
In light of the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the Court shall also deny
13
14
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.
15
VI.
REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER
16
The current discovery deadline for this case expired on November 9, 2022. (ECF No.
17
46.) Plaintiff requests an extension of the discovery deadline to bring any further motions to
18
compel or for sanctions.
19
Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P.
20
16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
21
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the
22
modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due
23
diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the
24
prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling
25
order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion
26
to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).
27
Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the Court to extend the discovery deadline in the
28
Court’s scheduling order. Discovery was open for nearly ten months, from January 10, 2022
3
1
until November 9, 2022, and Plaintiff has not explained why he could not meet the requirements
2
of the order. Plaintiff merely requests an extension of the deadline in case he needs to bring
3
further motions to compel or motions for sanctions. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to modify the
4
scheduling order shall be denied.
5
VII.
CONCLUSION
6
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
7
1.
denied as procedurally defective; and
8
9
Plaintiff’s motion to compel and for sanctions, filed on October 25, 2022, is
2.
Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Court’s scheduling order is denied for failure to
show good cause.
10
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 17, 2022
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?