Ashanti v. Obama et al

Filing 87

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/23/2016 GRANTING plaintiff's 85 motion for an extension of time; DENYING plaintiff's 82 motion to compel; and plaintiff's opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion is due within 30 days, defendant may file a reply within 14 days thereafter. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ASKIA ASHANTI,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-1644 JAM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Introduction

18

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

19

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 82.) On

20

June 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a reply to defendant’s

21

opposition to his motion to compel. (ECF No. 85.) On June 13, 2016, plaintiff filed a reply.

22

(ECF No. 86.) Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is granted and the

23

reply is deemed timely filed.

24

Discussion

25

Defendant first objects to the motion to compel on the grounds that plaintiff failed to meet

26

and confer prior to filing the motion, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. In a

27

declaration attached to the opposition, defense counsel states that at the conclusion of plaintiff’s

28

March 15, 2016 deposition, plaintiff stated that he wished to meet and confer regarding
1

1

defendant’s discovery responses. (ECF No. 84-1 at 2.) Defense counsel asked plaintiff if he

2

could tell him which specific responses he had concerns about, and plaintiff responded that he

3

could not at that moment. (Id.) Defense counsel told plaintiff that he could send him a letter with

4

any concerns he had about defendant’s discovery responses to satisfy the meet and confer

5

requirement. (Id.) Defense counsel represents that he received no correspondence from plaintiff

6

regarding any deficiencies in defendant’s previously served discovery responses. (Id.)

7

In his reply, plaintiff argues that he was not required to send defense counsel a letter

8

identifying any deficiencies in the discovery responses because virtually all responses were

9

evasive and non-responsive. Plaintiff is incorrect. Plaintiff is informed that even if he disagreed

10

with defendant’s responses to all of his requests, he was still required to attempt to resolve his

11

discovery disputes prior to filing a motion to compel. In any event, for the reasons discussed

12

herein, plaintiff’s motion to compel is not well supported.

13

In the motion to compel, plaintiff generally argues that defendant did not adequately

14

respond to all of the interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for

15

admissions. However, plaintiff does not discuss any specific responses and why they were not

16

adequate.

17

Plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court of (1) which discovery requests are the

18

subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of defendant’s responses are disputed, (3) why he

19

believes defendant’s responses are deficient, (4) why defendant’s objections are not justified, and

20

(5) why the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action.

21

McCoy v. Ramirez, 2016 WL 3196738 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL

22

860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (“Plaintiff must inform the court which discovery requests are the

23

subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the court why the

24

information sought is relevant and why Defendant's objections are not justified.”).

25

The undersigned agrees with defendant that plaintiff has not met his burden here. In this

26

motion, plaintiff seeks further responses to 25 interrogatories, 40 requests for production of

27

documents and 77 requests for admissions without addressing any of the objections asserted by

28

defendant.
2

1
2

By way of example, the undersigned reproduces plaintiff’s interrogatory no. 5 and
defendant’s responses:

3

Interrogatory no. 5: During plaintiff second commitment within the
CDCR/State Prison system from 1995-2015, have plaintiff ever
failed a random/drug controlled substance test imposed by the
prison system?

4
5

Response to Interrogatory No. 5: Defendant objects to this
interrogatory on grounds that it is overly broad, it is irrelevant to the
claims or defenses of any party, and it assumes facts which have not
been admitted. Without waiving these objections, defendant is
unable to respond to this interrogatory because, outside of the
incident at issue in this lawsuit, she lacks personal knowledge of
plaintiff’s disciplinary history between 1995 and 2015.

6
7
8
9
10

(ECF No. 82 at 13.)

11

The grounds of plaintiff’s objection to defendant’s response to interrogatory no. 5 are

12

unclear. Defendant’s response that she cannot respond to this interrogatory because she lacks

13

personal knowledge appears reasonable to the undersigned.

14

It is not the court’s duty to review defendant’s responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests

15

on plaintiff’s behalf. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied because plaintiff failed

16

to address why defendant’s objections were not justified and why defendant’s responses were

17

deficient.

18

On May 6, 2016, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 80.) On

19

May 17, 2016, the undersigned ordered that plaintiff would not be required to file an opposition

20

to the summary judgment motion until resolution of his motion to compel. Because the motion to

21

compel is resolved, the undersigned herein orders plaintiff to file his opposition to the summary

22

judgment motion.

23

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 85) is granted;

25

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 82) is denied; and

26

////

27

////

28

////
3

1

3. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion is due within thirty

2

days of the date of this order; defendant may file a reply within fourteen days thereafter.

3

Dated: June 23, 2016

4
5
6

Ash1644.com

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4