Ortiz v. Cox et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 7/28/2011 DENYING 19 defendantt's Motion to Compel and request for sanctions. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ROMAN ORTIZ,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:10-cv-0351 JFM (PC)

Defendants.

11

ORDER

vs.
COX, et al.,

/
On April 14, 2011, defendant filed a motion to compel. Defendant contends that

17

on February 7, 2011, he propounded discovery on plaintiff. In response, plaintiff produced some

18

documents, but did not provide written responses to the requests for production. Defendant

19

further asserts that plaintiff responded to the interrogatories but did not verify them. Defendant

20

seeks an order to compel and sanctions for costs associated with filing the motion to compel.

21

On April 26, 2011, the court issued an order to show cause why defendant’s

22

motion should not be granted. Plaintiff filed a statement on June 29, 2011. Plaintiff asserts that

23

he has attempted to comply with the discovery requests, submits a verification of his discovery

24

responses and attaches written responses to defendant’s requests for production.

25
26

The court, thus, finds that an order to compel is unnecessary in light of plaintiff’s
submission. The court further finds that sanctions are not warranted.
1

1

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

2

request for sanctions are denied.

3

DATED: July 28, 2011.

4
5
6
7

/014;orti0351.mtc

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2