Morris v. Nangalama et al

Filing 72

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/28/2015 DENYING plaintiff's 65 Motions to Compel and for Sanctions. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEON E. MORRIS,

12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-1202 MCE KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

DR. NANGALAMA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s claims that defendants violated plaintiff’s

19

First and Eighth Amendment rights. On March 16, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion requesting

20

sanctions and judicial intervention, which this court construes as a motion to compel discovery.

21

Defendants filed an opposition; no reply was filed by plaintiff. As set forth below, plaintiff’s

22

motion is denied.

23

I. Applicable Legal Standards

24

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

25

party’s claim or defense, and for good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant

26

to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted).

27

“Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably

28

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.
1

1

With respect to interrogatories, a party may propound interrogatories related to any matter

2

that may be inquired into under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2).

3

A party objecting to an interrogatory must state the grounds for the objection with specificity.

4

Fed. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). With respect to requests for production, a party may propound requests for

5

production of documents that are within the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Fed.

6

R. Civ. P. 34(a). A party objecting to a request for production must state the reasons for the

7

objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2)(B).

8
9

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may
move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or

11

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have

12

‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule

13

of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting

14

Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)).

15

I. Request for Interrogatories

16

In his motion, plaintiff contends that defendant Nangalama refused to answer

17

interrogatory numbers 7 and 9, and partially answered number 8; defendant Sahota refused to

18

answer numbers 7, 9, and 10, and partially answered number 8; defendant Turner refused to

19

answer numbers 7 and 8, and partially answered number 6; and defendant Whitted refused to

20

answer numbers 6, 7, and 8. Defendants assert that their objections are valid, and no further

21

responses should be ordered.

22

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a responding party is obligated to respond to

23

interrogatories to the fullest extent possible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be

24

stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). The responding party shall use common sense

25

and reason. E.g. Collins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2008 WL 1924935, *8 (D. Kan. Apr.30, 2008).

26

A responding party is not generally required to conduct extensive research in order to answer an

27

interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made. L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2007

28

WL 2781132, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2007). Further, the responding party has a duty to
2

1

supplement any responses if the information sought is later obtained or the response provided

2

needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

A. Defendant Nangalama
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Why have you come to work in or @
C.S.P./Sacramento or any other California state gulag/prison?
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, compound, not
relevant to a stated claim or defense in this action, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to invade Defendant’s
rights to privacy and confidentiality protected under common law
and the Constitutions of the State of California and the United
States.
(ECF No. 65 at 4.)
Defendant’s objections are sustained. As argued by defendants, the reason for defendant’s

12

employment decisions are not relevant to plaintiff’s claims in this action. Plaintiff’s motion to

13

compel further response is denied.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: How many times have you had a 602
staff complaint filed against you?
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and
ambiguous in its reference to “602 staff complaint,” not relevant to
a stated claim or defense in this action, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, calls for
speculation, and assumes facts not in evidence. This interrogatory
also seeks to invade Defendant’s rights to privacy and
confidentiality protected under common law and the Constitutions
of the State of California and the United States. Without waiving
these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant notes
that inmates frequently file grievances against CDCR staff,
including Defendant. Defendant does not recall any staff filing a
complaint against him.
(ECF No. 65 at 4-5.)
Defendant’s objections are sustained. Plaintiff’s reference to “602 staff complaint” is

25

ambiguous. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that other inmate grievances are

26

relevant to plaintiff’s claims herein. See Calloway v. Kelley, 2014 WL 7140576 at *2 (“Plaintiff

27

bears the burden of identifying which responses are in dispute and providing sufficient

28

information so that the Court can discern why he is challenging the response. It is insufficient for
3

1

Plaintiff to merely attach all discovery requests and responses thereto and claim he is not satisfied

2

and request a further response.”). Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response is denied.

3

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: What was each 602 staff complaint
filed against you about? What was the complaint about?

4

RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and
ambiguous in its reference to “602 staff complaint,” compound, not
relevant to a stated claim or defense in this action, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to invade Defendant’s
rights to privacy and confidentiality protected under common law
and the Constitutions of the State of California and the United
States. Similarly, this interrogatory seeks to invade the rights to
privacy and confidentiality protected under common law and the
Constitutions of the State of California and the United States of
individuals who are not party to this action. Without waiving these
objections, Defendant responds as follows: Not applicable;
Defendant does not recall any staff filing a complaint against him.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

(ECF No. 65 at 5.)

13

Defendant’s objections are well-taken. Plaintiff’s reference to “602 staff complaint” is

14

ambiguous, and defendant does not recall any staff filing a complaint against him. Moreover,

15

plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that other inmate grievances are relevant to plaintiff’s claims

16

herein. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response is denied.

17

B. Defendant Sahota

18

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Why have you come to work in or @
C.S.P./Sacramento or any other California state gulag/prison?

19

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that its reference to “gulag” is argumentative and
inflammatory. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on
the grounds that it is not relevant to a stated claim or defense in this
action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to invade
Defendant’s rights to privacy and confidentiality protected under
common law and the Constitutions of the State of California and
the United States.

20
21
22
23
24
25

(ECF No. 65 at 6.)
As argued by defendants, the reason for defendant’s employment decisions are not

26
27

relevant to this action. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response is denied.

28

////
4

1

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: How many times have you had a 602
staff complaint filed against you?

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and
ambiguous in its reference to “602 staff complaint,” not relevant to
a stated claim or defense in this action, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, calls for
speculation, and assumes facts not in evidence. This interrogatory
also seeks to invade Defendant’s rights to privacy and
confidentiality protected under common law and the Constitutions
of the State of California and the United States. Without waiving
these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant notes
that inmates frequently file grievances against CDCR staff,
including Defendant. Defendant does not recall any staff filing a
complaint against Defendant.

9
10
11

(ECF No. 65 at 6.)
Defendant’s objections are well-taken. Plaintiff’s reference to “602 staff complaint” is

12

ambiguous, and defendant does not recall any staff filing a complaint against defendant. Further,

13

plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that other inmate grievances are relevant to plaintiff’s claims

14

herein. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response is denied.

15

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: What was each 602 staff complaint
filed against you about? What was the complaint about?

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and
ambiguous in its reference to “staff complaint,” compound, not
relevant to a stated claim or defense in this action, not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, calls for
speculation, and assumes facts not in evidence. This interrogatory
also seeks to invade Defendant’s rights to privacy and
confidentiality protected under common law and the Constitutions
of the State of California and the United States. Similarly, this
interrogatory seeks to invade the rights to privacy and
confidentiality protected under common law and the Constitutions
of the State of California and the United States of other individuals
who are not party to this action. Without waiving these objections,
Defendant responds as follows: Not applicable; Defendant does not
recall any staff filing a complaint against Defendant.

24
25
26

(ECF No. 65 at 7.)
Defendant’s objections are sustained. Plaintiff’s reference to “602 staff complaint” is

27

ambiguous, and defendant does not recall any staff filing a complaint against defendant Sahota.

28

Further, to the extent plaintiff sought other inmate grievances against defendant Sahota, plaintiff
5

1

has failed to demonstrate that other inmate grievances are relevant to plaintiff’s claims herein.

2

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response is denied.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: What was the resolution of each 602
staff complaint against you?
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and
ambiguous in its reference to “staff complaint,” not relevant to a
stated claim or defense in this action, not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, calls for speculation,
and assumes facts not in evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to
invade Defendant’s rights to privacy and confidentiality protected
under common law and the Constitutions of the State of California
and the United States. Similarly, this interrogatory seeks to invade
the rights to privacy and confidentiality protected under common
law and the Constitutions of the State of California and the United
States of other inmates who are not party to this action. Without
waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows:
Defendant notes that inmates frequently file grievances against
CDCR staff, including Defendant. Defendant does not recall any
staff filing a complaint against Defendant.
(ECF No. 65 at 7-8.)
Because number 10 also addresses 602 staff complaints, the prior analysis applies, and as

15

defendant is not required to further respond to numbers 9 and 10, no further response to number

16

10 is required by defendant Sahota.

17

C. Defendant Turner

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: How many times have you had a 602
staff complaint filed against you?
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and
ambiguous in its reference to “602 staff complaint,” not relevant to
a stated claim or defense in this action, not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and assumes facts not
in evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to invade Defendant’s
rights to privacy and confidentiality protected under common law
and the Constitutions of the State of California and the United
States. Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as
follows: Defendant recalls that two or three 602s were submitted
against Defendant. Defendant has no knowledge or recollection of
any staff complaint filed against Defendant.
(ECF No. 65 at 9.)
Notwithstanding the objections, defendant Turner responded that he recalled that two or
three 602 inmate grievances were submitted against defendant, and that defendant had no
6

1

knowledge or recollection of any complaint filed by staff against defendant. Plaintiff has failed to

2

demonstrate how such answers are insufficient. No further response is required.

3

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: What was the reason each staff comcomplaint [sic] against you was filed? What was the complaint
about?

4
5

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and
ambiguous in its reference to “staff com-complaint,” not relevant to
a stated claim or defense in this action, not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and assumes facts not
in evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to invade Defendant’s
rights to privacy and confidentiality protected under common law
and the Constitutions of the State of California and the United
States. Similarly, this interrogatory seeks to invade the rights to
privacy and confidentiality protected under common law and the
Constitutions of the State of California and the United States of
other individuals, who are not party to this action. Without waiving
these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Not applicable;
Defendant has no knowledge or recollection of any staff complaint
filed against Defendant.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

(ECF No. 65 at 9.)
Defendant’s objections are sustained. No further response is required.

14
15

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: What was the resolution of each 602
staff complaint against you?

16

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and
ambiguous in its reference to “602 staff complaint,” not relevant to
a stated claim or defense in this action, not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and assumes facts not
in evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to invade Defendant’s
rights to privacy and confidentiality protected under common law
and the Constitutions of the State of California and the United
States. Similarly, this interrogatory seeks to invade the rights to
privacy and confidentiality protected under common law and the
Constitutions of the State of California and the United States of
other individuals who are not party to this action. Without waiving
these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Not applicable;
Defendant has no knowledge or recollection of any staff complaint
filed against Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(ECF No. 65 at 10.)
Defendant’s objections are well-taken. No further response is required.

26
27

////

28

////
7

1

D. Defendant Whitted

2

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: How many times have you had a 602
staff complaint filed against you?

3

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and
ambiguous in its reference to “602 staff complaint,” not relevant to
a stated claim or defense in this action, not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, calls for speculation,
and assumes facts not in evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to
invade Defendant’s rights to privacy and confidentiality protected
under common law and the Constitutions of the State of California
and the United States.
Without waiving these objections,
Defendant responds as follows: Defendant recalls that one inmate
grievance was submitted against him many years ago. Defendant
has no recollection or knowledge of any staff complaint filed
against Defendant.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

(ECF No. 65 at 11.)

12

Notwithstanding the objections, defendant Whitted responded that he recalled that one

13

602 inmate grievances was submitted against defendant many years ago, and that defendant had

14

no recollection or knowledge of any complaint filed by staff against defendant. Plaintiff has

15

failed to demonstrate how such answers are insufficient. No further response is required.

16

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: What was the reason each staff
complaint against you was filed? What was the complaint about?

17

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and
ambiguous in its reference to “staff com-complaint,” not relevant to
a stated claim or defense in this action, not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, calls for speculation,
and assumes facts not in evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to
invade Defendant’s rights to privacy and confidentiality protected
under common law and the Constitutions of the State of California
and the United States.
Without waiving these objections,
Defendant responds as follows: Defendant recalls that one inmate
grievance was submitted against him many years ago. Not
applicable; Defendant has no knowledge or recollection of any staff
complaint filed against Defendant.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(ECF No. 65 at 11-12.)
Defendant’s objections are sustained. No further response is required.

26
27

////

28

////
8

1

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: What was the resolution of each 602
staff complaint against you?

2
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and
ambiguous in its reference to “602 staff complaint,” not relevant to
a stated claim or defense in this action, not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and assumes facts not
in evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to invade Defendant’s
rights to privacy and confidentiality protected under common law
and the Constitutions of the State of California and the United
States. Similarly, this interrogatory seeks to invade the rights to
privacy and confidentiality protected under common law and the
Constitutions of the State of California and the United States of
other inmates who are not party to this action. Without waiving
these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Not applicable;
Defendant has no recollection or knowledge of any staff complaint
filed against Defendant.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

(ECF No. 65 at 12.)
Defendant’s objections are well-taken. No further response is required.

12
13

II. Request for Production of Documents
Plaintiff contends that defendants refuse to turn over two of the four documents requested.

14
15

Defendants note that plaintiff provided no factual or legal discussion in support of the motion.

16

Defendants state that they have produced over 100 pages of responsive documents, and argue that

17

plaintiff is entitled to review his central file and Unit Health Records pursuant to prison

18

procedures.

19

The reach of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs requests for

20

production, “extends to all relevant documents, tangible things and entry upon designated land or

21

other property.” Clark v. Vega Wholesale Inc., 181 F.R.D. 470, 472-473 (1998), citing 8A C.

22

Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2206, at 381. Rule 34 does require that the

23

party upon whom a request is served “be in possession, custody, or control of the requested item.”

24

Clark, 181 F.R.D. at 473, citing Estate of Young v. Holmes, 134 F.R.D. 291, 293 (D. Nev.1991).

25

Under Rule 34, “[c]ontrol is defined as the legal right to obtain documents upon demand.

26

[Citation.] The party seeking production of the documents . . . bears the burden of proving that

27

////

28

////
9

1

the opposing party has such control.” U.S. Int’l Union of Petroleum and Indus. Workers, AFL-

2

CIO, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989); see also In re Citric Acid Lit., 191 F.3d 1090, 1108

3

(9th Cir. 1999) (discussing the same issue in a Rule 45 context).

4

A. 602 Staff Complaints

5

In addition, plaintiff contends that defendants refused to produce all of the 602 staff

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

complaints or 602s filed against them. (ECF No. 65 at 2.)
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: A copy of 602 staff
complaints filed against defendants Nangalama, K. Turner, G.
Whitted and Sahota.
(ECF No. 65 at 15.)
RESPONSE: Defendants object to this request on the grounds that
it is overbroad in scope and time, vague and ambiguous in its
reference to “602 staff complaints,” burdensome, not relevant to a
state claim or defense in this action, and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible documents. This request also
seeks to violate the Defendants’ rights to privacy and
confidentiality under common law and the constitutions of the State
of California and the United States. This request also seeks to
violate the rights to privacy and confidentiality under common law
and the constitutions of the State of California and the United States
of other individuals who are not party to this action. No documents
will be produced in response to this request.
(ECF No. 65 at 16.)
Defendants’ objections are sustained. Plaintiff did not limit his request in time or scope,

19

and the blending of “602,” which refers to inmate grievances, with “staff complaints,” which

20

could refer to complaints filed by staff, or could refer to complaints filed against staff by inmates,

21

is ambiguous. In addition, plaintiff failed to demonstrate how such documents would be relevant

22

to his First and Eighth Amendment claims. See, e.g., Gamez v. Gonzalez, 2015 WL 236684 at

23

*10 (E.D. Cal. Jan.16, 2015) (Plaintiff may not simply assert that he is dissatisfied for general

24

reasons with defendants’ objections, and that he wants an order compelling production of

25

documents.) No further production is required.

26

B. Documents re Hunger Strikes

27

Specifically, plaintiff argues that defendant failed to provide the 128B chronos issued

28

while plaintiff was a patient at the MOHU on suicide prevention and hunger strike from February
10

1

2, 2010, through February 18, 2010; and the unsigned progress notes written on February 4 or 5

2

or maybe February 6, 2010, while plaintiff was a patient at MOHU. (ECF No. 65 at 2.)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff’s requests are set forth below, and the responses will be addressed together
thereafter.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: A copy of all documents
relating to and/or in reference to plaintiff’s hungar [sic] strikes.
Including plaintiff[‘s] stay in MOHU @ 13-1 in February 2009.
RESPONSE: Defendants object to this request on the grounds that
it is overbroad, and vague and ambiguous. Without waiving these
objections, Defendants respond as follows: See Exhibit B, which
consists of portions of Plaintiff’s Unit Health Records, including
Hunger Strike Daily Reports, Hunger Strike (Fast) Worksheets,
Refusals of Examination and/or Treatment, MHOHU Suicide
Observation logs, Physician Orders, Mental Health Disciplinary
Progress Notes, and Memorandum regarding claims of hunger
strike.
(ECF No. 65 at 15.)
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: A copy of all staff written
chronos in reference to plaintiff’s hungar [sic] strikes.
RESPONSE: Defendants object to this request on the grounds that
it is overbroad in scope and time. Without waiving these
objections, Defendants respond as follows: See Exhibit B.
(ECF No. 65 at 15-16.)

18

Defendants’ objections to both requests are well-taken. In the operative complaint,

19

plaintiff alleges that he began his hunger strike on January 2, 2010. (ECF No. 39 at 4.) Thus, it is

20

unclear why plaintiff sought hunger strike records from 2009. Defendants’ response does not

21

indicate the time frame of the documents produced, but plaintiff does not object that the records

22

provided were not appropriate and also did not provide the documents for the court’s review.

23

Defendants cannot be faulted for not producing 2010 records in response to request number 3 that

24

seeks records from February 2009.

25

Defendants’ response in connection with their Exhibit B reflect the production of

26

numerous documents from plaintiff’s unit health record. Indeed, defendants state they produced

27

over 100 pages of responsive documents to plaintiff. (ECF No. 70 at 7.) The documents sought

28

by plaintiff are documents located in plaintiff’s central file and prison medical file, which are
11

1

available to plaintiff through institutional policies and procedures. The court will not order

2

defendants to produce documents that are equally accessible to plaintiff in his central file. See

3

e.g. Ford v. Wildey, 2014 WL 4354600 at * 4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2014) (“Defendant indicates that

4

any such documents are located in his central file for which Plaintiff has equal access. This

5

response complies with Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. . . .”); Valenzuela v.

6

Smith, 2006 WL 403842 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb.16, 2006) (defendants will not be compelled to

7

produce documents that are “equally available to plaintiff in his prison medical file or in the

8

prison law library.”). Plaintiff’s motion to compel further production is denied.

9

III. Request for Sanctions

10

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is

11

inappropriate because no court order requiring discovery responses had yet issued. Fed. R. Civ.

12

P. 37(b). Thus, plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

13

If a motion to compel is granted, the moving party may be entitled to an award of

14

reasonable expenses actually incurred in moving to compel, but plaintiff is not entitled to recoup

15

any expenses in light of the denial of his motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).

16

IV. Conclusion

17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 65) is denied; and

19

2. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 65) is denied.

20

Dated: May 28, 2015

21
22
/morr1202.mtc

23
24
25
26
27
28
12