United States of America v. Barker et al

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/19/16 ORDERING that Defendant's 9/24/15 MOTION to COMPEL 40 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0062-JAM-EFB (TEMP)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

RANDY KENT BARKER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On September 24, 2015, defendant Randy Kent Barker, a federal prisoner proceeding

18

without counsel, filed a motion to compel.1 ECF No. 40. As the moving party, defendant bears

19

the burden of informing the court of (1) which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to

20

compel, (2) which of plaintiff’s responses are disputed, (3) why he believes plaintiff’s responses

21

are deficient, (4) why plaintiff’s objections are not justified, and (5) why the information he seeks

22

through discovery is relevant to this action. See, e.g., Brooks v. Alameida, No. CIV S-03-2343

23

JAM EFB P, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9568, 2009 WL 331358 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) (“Without

24

knowing which responses plaintiff seeks to compel or on what grounds, the court cannot grant

25

plaintiff’s motion”); Ellis v. Cambra, No. CIV 02-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

26
27
28

1

This motion is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1), which provides
that all discovery motions are among the duties to be performed by the assigned magistrate judge
in civil matters.
1

1

109050, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008) (“Plaintiff must inform the court

2

which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response,

3

inform the court why the information sought is relevant and why Defendant’s objections are not

4

justified.”).

5

Here, defendant’s motion fails to provide any of the necessary information. In this regard,

6

defendant’s motion simply states that it seeks to compel answers from plaintiff’s “trial attorneys,”

7

to questions including “[d]efine a ‘Dollar,’” “[d]efine a ‘Federal Reserve Note,’” and “[d]efine a

8

‘Sovereign White Christian Man.’” ECF No. 40 at 1-2. In the absence of any further information

9

there is no basis for granting defendant’s motion.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s September 24, 2015 motion to

11

compel, ECF No. 40, is denied.

12

DATED: January 19, 2016.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2