Hill v. Hall et al

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 07/10/12 denying 30 Motion to Compel. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

KENNETH HILL,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. 2:10-cv-1896 MCE EFB P

J. HALL, 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. Pursuant to the court’s scheduling order, any motions to compel were to be filed

18

by June 22, 2012. Dckt. No. 24. In a filing dated June 20, 2012, plaintiff, in only one sentence,

19

moves to compel defendants to “answer, according to requests made pursuant to Rule 34,” and to

20

“permit inspection and copying of documents requested pursuant to Rule 36 of Fed. R. Civ. P.”

21

Dckt. No. 30.
A motion to compel is appropriate when a party fails to produce relevant, non-privileged

22
23

documents requested pursuant to Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). Additionally, an

24

evasive or incomplete answer or response to a discovery request “must be treated as a failure to

25

disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The party seeking to compel discovery

26

////
1

1

has the burden of informing the court why the defendants’ objections are not justified or why the

2

defendants’ responses are otherwise deficient.

3

Here, plaintiff offers no explanation as to why defendants’ responses to his discovery

4

requests were deficient. Without knowing how defendants responded to plaintiff’s discovery

5

requests, or on what grounds plaintiff moves to compel further responses, there is no basis on

6

which to grant plaintiff’s motion.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dckt. No.

8

30) is denied.

9

DATED: July 10, 2012.

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