Johnson v. Sisto et al
ORDER denying 148 Motion to Compel discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/12/13. (Plummer, M)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON,
No. 2:08-cv-1609 KJM KJN P
D.K. SISTO, et al.,
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to discovery is before the court.
Defendants filed an opposition, and plaintiff did not file a reply. As set forth below, plaintiff’s
motion to compel is denied.
In his motion, plaintiff contends that the documents provided by defendants in
response to plaintiff’s request for production of documents were “unreadable,” that answers to
requests for admissions and interrogatories were “evasive,” and included “false denials,” and that
defendants failed to produce documents known or available to them. Plaintiff refers to an
affidavit attached to a request for extension. (Dkt. No. 148 at 1.) In his affidavit, plaintiff states
that defendants “failed to respond to discovery requests,” and that defendants noticed his
deposition for January 31, 2013. (Dkt. No. 147 at 2.) Plaintiff is housed in segregation, and
claims that four of his five boxes of legal materials were disposed of by Pleasant Valley State
Prison custody staff. (Dkt. No. 147 at 2.) Plaintiff states he would seek to confer with opposing
counsel to replace discovery documents. (Id.)
Defendants contend that plaintiff’s motion fails to identify a particular discovery
request to which defendants did not adequately respond, or offer facts on which to base an order
to compel further response. Defendants contend their discovery responses were adequate, and
that they produced all responsive items in their possession, custody, or control in response to
plaintiff’s request for production of documents. Defendants state that they subsequently
produced more legible copies of all discovery responses given in this matter. (Dkt. Nos. 156 at
3; 156-1 at 2.)
Plaintiff has not responded to defendants’ objections.
Defendants’ objections are well taken. The Local Rules require parties to file the
request and response that are at issue in connection with a motion to compel discovery. (L.R.
250.2, 250.3, & 250.4.) Plaintiff did not do so. Moreover, plaintiff did not identify the specific
request or interrogatory that he challenges, and without copies of the discovery requests and
responses, as well as plaintiff’s specific arguments directed to each request he challenges as
insufficient, the court is unable to determine whether the response was sufficient. Plaintiff’s
general claims that the responses are “evasive,” or include “false denials,” are too vague without
specific factual references. Finally, it appears that counsel for defendants provided plaintiff with
a copy of all discovery responded to by the defendants in this action. (Dkt. No. 156-4 at 2.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel
discovery (dkt. no. 148) is denied without prejudice.
DATED: April 12, 2013
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?