Willaims v. Sullivan et al

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 09/30/11 granting 36 Motion to Compel. Within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall serve defendant with responses to interrogatories 1-10 without any objection. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ANTHONY WILLIAMS,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2: 09-cv-3160 KJN P

SULLIVAN, et al.,

14
15
16

Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights

17

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 21, 2011, defendant Sullivan filed a motion to

18

compel. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition. Accordingly, on September 2, 2011 plaintiff was

19

ordered to show cause within twenty-one days for his failure to file an opposition. That time has

20

passed and plaintiff did not respond to the show cause order.

21

In the motion to compel, defendant claims that plaintiff failed to provide

22

responses to defendant’s first set of interrogatories (nos. 10-10) propounded on April 12, 2011.

23

The undersigned observes that several of defendant’s interrogatories are contention

24

interrogatories. “Contention interrogatories, directed to a pro se litigant, are rarely

25

appropriate[.]” Nielsen v. Society of New York Hosp., 1988 WL 100197 at * 2 (S.D.N.Y. 1988);

26

see also Pobursky v. Madera County, 2009 WL 1582847 at * 2 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (“The Court also
1

1

noted, and the long, tortured history of discovery in this action demonstrates, the futility of

2

contention interrogatories, especially in actions involving pro se plaintiffs). Because plaintiff

3

failed to respond to the interrogatories, the motion to compel and the order to show cause, the

4

undersigned finds that plaintiff has waived any objection to the contention interrogatories.

5
6

The court deems plaintiff’s failure to respond to the order to show cause to be a
waiver of opposition.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. Defendant’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 36) is granted;

9

2. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall serve defendant

10

with responses to interrogatories nos. 1-10 without any objections.

11

DATED: September 30, 2011

12
13

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15

will3160.com

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2