Crane v. McDonald et al

Filing 68

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/8/13 denying 64 Motion to Compel. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD J. CRANE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-0663 KJM CKD P

v.

ORDER

MIKE McDONALD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to produce

20

certain documents in discovery. (ECF No. 64.) Defendants have not filed a response.
This action proceeds on the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which the court found

21
22

stated an Eighth Amendment claim concerning the denial of outdoor exercise. (ECF Nos. 21, 22.)

23

A scheduling order, issued December 3, 2012, set the discovery deadline as March 22, 2013. Any

24

motions necessary to compel discovery were to be filed by that date. (ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff’s

25

motion to compel was constructively filed on April 18, 2013 (ECF No. 64 at 2), and thus is

26

untimely.

27

/////

28
1

1

Moreover, even had plaintiff timely filed his motion to compel, he has not carried his

2

burden to show why defendants’ responses are inadequate or their objections unjustified. See

3

Williams v. Cate, 2011 WL 6217378 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2011) (“Plaintiff bears the burden

4

of informing the Court . . . for each disputed response, why Defendant’s objection is not justified.

5

. . . Plaintiff may not simply assert that he has served discovery responses, that he is dissatisfied,

6

and that he wants an order compelling further responses.”), citing Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL

7

860523 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008); see also Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 (party moving

8

to compel discovery responses must include reasons why further answers should be ordered: legal

9

or factual arguments why the answers given were incomplete or nonresponsive, or the objections

10
11

invalid).
Here, plaintiff does not show why defendants’ responses to specific requests are deficient.

12

Rather, he attaches defendants’ responses to all of his document requests and generally asserts

13

that unspecified documents are not maintained in his central file, as defendants claim. Thus, even

14

if the motion to compel were timely, plaintiff has not supplied a sufficient reason for granting it.

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No.

16

64) is denied.

17

Dated: July 8, 2013

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23

2 / cran0663.mtc

24
25
26
27
28
2