Johnson v. Sisto et al

Filing 157

ORDER denying 148 Motion to Compel discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/12/13. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2:08-cv-1609 KJM KJN P

D.K. SISTO, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

ORDER
/

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to discovery is before the court.

17

Defendants filed an opposition, and plaintiff did not file a reply. As set forth below, plaintiff’s

18

motion to compel is denied.

19

In his motion, plaintiff contends that the documents provided by defendants in

20

response to plaintiff’s request for production of documents were “unreadable,” that answers to

21

requests for admissions and interrogatories were “evasive,” and included “false denials,” and that

22

defendants failed to produce documents known or available to them. Plaintiff refers to an

23

affidavit attached to a request for extension. (Dkt. No. 148 at 1.) In his affidavit, plaintiff states

24

that defendants “failed to respond to discovery requests,” and that defendants noticed his

25

deposition for January 31, 2013. (Dkt. No. 147 at 2.) Plaintiff is housed in segregation, and

26

claims that four of his five boxes of legal materials were disposed of by Pleasant Valley State
1

1

Prison custody staff. (Dkt. No. 147 at 2.) Plaintiff states he would seek to confer with opposing

2

counsel to replace discovery documents. (Id.)

3

Defendants contend that plaintiff’s motion fails to identify a particular discovery

4

request to which defendants did not adequately respond, or offer facts on which to base an order

5

to compel further response. Defendants contend their discovery responses were adequate, and

6

that they produced all responsive items in their possession, custody, or control in response to

7

plaintiff’s request for production of documents. Defendants state that they subsequently

8

produced more legible copies of all discovery responses given in this matter. (Dkt. Nos. 156 at

9

3; 156-1 at 2.)

10

Plaintiff has not responded to defendants’ objections.

11

Defendants’ objections are well taken. The Local Rules require parties to file the

12

request and response that are at issue in connection with a motion to compel discovery. (L.R.

13

250.2, 250.3, & 250.4.) Plaintiff did not do so. Moreover, plaintiff did not identify the specific

14

request or interrogatory that he challenges, and without copies of the discovery requests and

15

responses, as well as plaintiff’s specific arguments directed to each request he challenges as

16

insufficient, the court is unable to determine whether the response was sufficient. Plaintiff’s

17

general claims that the responses are “evasive,” or include “false denials,” are too vague without

18

specific factual references. Finally, it appears that counsel for defendants provided plaintiff with

19

a copy of all discovery responded to by the defendants in this action. (Dkt. No. 156-4 at 2.)

20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel

21

discovery (dkt. no. 148) is denied without prejudice.

22

DATED: April 12, 2013

23
24

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26

john1609.mtc

2