Davenport v. Lee et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/31/11 STRIKING 24 Request for Production of Documents, DENYING 34 , 35 , 36 , and 22 MOTIONS to Compel and DENYING 37 Motion. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RONALD DAVENPORT,
Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.

13

No. CIV S-09-3091 GEB EFB P

BEN LEE, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

16
17

U.S.C. § 1983. On March 9, 2011, plaintiff moved to compel defendants Reddy, Lee and Bal

18

(“defendants”) to respond to plaintiff’s requests for admissions, requests for production, and

19

interrogatories. Dckt. No. 22. Defendants opposed the motion. Dckt. No. 28. On March 16,

20

2011, plaintiff filed with the court his requests for production of documents, which are directed

21

to defendants. Dckt. No. 24. On April 5, 2011, plaintiff filed three “amended” motions to

22

compel, and on April 14th, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court determine whether

23

defendants’ discovery responses are duplicative. Dckt. Nos. 34-37. Defendants opposed these

24

motions. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motions will be denied and plaintiff’s March

25

16th filing will be stricken from the docket.

26

////
1

1

I.

2

Plaintiff’s March 9, 2011 Motion to Compel
On March 9, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. A motion to compel is appropriate

3

when a party fails to provide responses to interrogatories submitted under Rule 33, or fails to

4

produce relevant, non-privileged documents requested pursuant to Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. P.

5

37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv). An evasive or incomplete answer or response to a discovery request “must

6

be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The party

7

seeking to compel discovery has the burden of informing the court why the defendants’

8

objections are not justified or why the defendants’ responses are otherwise deficient.
Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion to compel on the grounds that plaintiff had not

9
10

served defendants with his interrogatories or his requests for production prior to filing his

11

motion, and because plaintiff did not indicate which of the responses to any of his requests for

12

admissions he contends are insufficient. Dckt. No. 28. In a declaration provided with

13

defendants’ opposition, defense counsel indicates that defendants never received any document

14

requests or interrogatories before plaintiff filed the March 9th motion. Dckt. No. 28, Ex. A

15

¶¶ 2-3. Defendants also point out that plaintiff has not identified any interrogatories or

16

document requests to which he seeks further responses. Dckt. No. 28 at 2. Plaintiff did not file a

17

reply.

18

It appears from the court file that plaintiff never served defendants with interrogatories or

19

requests for production prior to filing his motion to compel. Moreover, plaintiff has not

20

identified any particular responses from defendants as deficient. Therefore, to the extent

21

plaintiff seeks to compel responses to his requests for production and interrogatories, his request

22

will be denied.

23

With his motion, plaintiff attaches all 73 of defendants’ responses to his requests for

24

admissions, but in no way indicates how any of those responses are deficient. See Dckt. No. 22,

25

Exs. A, B, C. Without knowing which responses to plaintiff’s requests for admissions that he

26

seeks to compel and on what grounds, there is no basis on which to grant plaintiff’s motion.
2

1

Accordingly, plaintiff’s March 9th motion will also be denied to the extent it seeks to compel

2

further responses to his requests for admissions.

3

II.

4

Plaintiff’s March 16, 2011 Filing
On March 16, 2011, plaintiff filed his requests for production of documents with the

5

court. Plaintiff is hereby informed that he must serve his requests for discovery on defendants

6

rather than filing them with the court. Interrogatories, requests for production, requests for

7

admission, responses and proofs of service thereof “shall not be filed with the clerk until there is

8

a proceeding in which the document or proof of service is at issue. When required in a

9

proceeding, only that part of the request and response that is in issue shall be filed.” Local Rules

10

250.2-250.4. Plaintiff’s March 16th requests for production of documents will therefore be

11

stricken from the docket.

12

III.

Plaintiff’s April 5, 2011 and April 14, 2011 Motions

13

In his April 5th motions, plaintiff again moves to compel defendants to provide further

14

responses to, apparently all, of his requests for admissions. Dckt. Nos. 34-36. In his April 14,

15

2011 motion, plaintiff argues that defendants’ responses to his requests for admissions are

16

duplicative. Dckt. No. 37. Defendants argue that plaintiff’s motions should be denied because

17

plaintiff merely asserts that he needs defendants’ responses to his requests for admissions but

18

does not rebut any of defendants’ objections to the requests. Dckt. No. 40.

19

Plaintiff has not met his burden on his motions to compel. Plaintiff does not explain how

20

any particular response of defendants is deficient. Moreover, the court has reviewed defendants’

21

responses and finds that defendants raised proper objections. See Dckt. No. 37, Exs. A, B, C.

22

Plaintiff’s requests mostly took on one of two forms, both of which were vague and

23

unintelligible. Plaintiff either listed a drug along with certain dates or provided a disjointed and

24

rambling statement. For example, in request for admission number five to defendant Lee,

25

plaintiff stated “The drug call Atacand 8 mg-16mg, 7/8/2008-11/29/2008, Lee.Dunlap/Reddy.”

26

Dckt. No. 37, Ex. A (RFA No. 5). Lee’s objections that this request and others like it, were
3

1

vague and unintelligible, were proper. That defendants repeatedly raised the “vague and

2

unintelligible” objection does not render it inappropriate as duplicative. Plaintiff’s other

3

requests, while longer than the requests merely listing drugs and dates, were also vague and

4

unintelligible. For example, in request for admission number one to all defendants, plaintiff

5

stated:

6

8

Required information as to prescription drugs not included in advertisements is
such other information in brief summary relating to side effects,
contraindications, and effectiveness as shall be required by regulations
promulgated by the department: Per California Health and Safety Code section
111360.

9

Dckt. No. 37, Ex. A (RFA No. 1), Ex. B (RFA No. 1), Ex. C RFA No. 1) . Again, defendants

7

10

appropriately objected to this requests and others like it, as vague and unintelligible.

11

It is not at all clear precisely what information plaintiff seeks through his requests for

12

admissions. The requests are framed in such a way that defendants could not possibly admit or

13

deny them. Thus, defendants also properly responded to many of plaintiff’s requests by stating

14

that they do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the request. See Dckt. No. 37, Exs.

15

A, B. C. Plaintiff has not explained why any of defendants’ objections or responses are

16

improper or deficient, nor does plaintiff adequately clarify what information he sought through

17

his requests for admissions. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief On this record, the court must

18

deny plaintiff’s motions.

19

IV.

Conclusion

20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that;

21

1. Plaintiff’s March 9, 2011 motion to compel (Dckt. No. 22) is denied;

22

2. Plaintiff’s March 16, 2011 request for production of documents (Dckt. No. 24) is

23

stricken and the Clerk of the Court shall make a notation on the docket to that effect;

24

3. Plaintiff’s April 5, 2011 motions to compel (Dckt. Nos. 34, 35, 36) are denied; and

25

////

26

////
4

1
2

4. Plaintiff’s April 14, 2011 motion (Dckt. No. 37) is denied.
Dated: May 31, 2011.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5