Thomas v. Kaul et al.
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/28/2018 DENYING as moot 31 Motion to Compel. (Henshaw, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CLIFFORD BRENT THOMAS,
No. 2:16-cv-2784-JAM-EFB P
K. KAUR, et al.,
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, has filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 31) which seeks the production of a drug test
conducted at San Joaquin General Hospital on October 21, 2015. Defendants have filed an
opposition wherein they state that: (1) plaintiff’s discovery requests failed to identify this
document with sufficient specificity; and (2) they have already provided the document in
question. ECF No. 34. The court credits the second argument and denies the motion on that
Parties are obligated to respond to interrogatories to the fullest extent possible under oath,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P.
33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981) (“objections should be plain
enough and specific enough so that the court can understand in what way the interrogatories are
alleged to be objectionable”). A responding party is typically not required to conduct extensive
research in order to answer an interrogatory, but reasonable efforts to respond must be
undertaken. L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, No. S-06-2042 LKK GGH, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73752,
2007 WL 2781132, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2007). Further, the responding party has a duty to
supplement any responses if the information sought is later obtained or the response provided
needs correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is limited to a single document – a drug test conducted in
October of 2015 at San Joaquin General Hospital. Defendants have attached a copy of that
document to their opposition (ECF No. 34-4 at 2-3) and their counsel has filed a declaration
stating that this document was sent to plaintiff (ECF No. 34-1 at 1-2). Plaintiff has not filed a
reply disputing either the relevance of the provided document or the contention that it was sent to
him. Accordingly, the court finds that there is no longer any material dispute between the parties
as to this issue.
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 31) is DENIED as moot.
DATED: June 28, 2018.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?