Haddix v. Burris et al

Filing 52

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

TERRENCE LLOYD HADDIX, JR.,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER

C/O SEAN BURRIS; et al.,

12

No. C-12-1674 EMC (pr)

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on May 9, 2014. Plaintiff thereafter served

15

discovery requests, to which he received responses not to his satisfaction. Plaintiff has moved to

16

compel discovery and moved to stay the summary judgment motion or extend the deadline for his

17

opposition until the discovery dispute is resolved.

18

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is inadequate because he does not explain exactly what relief he

19

wants from the Court. Defendant asserted several objections to the discovery requests, but did

20

provide a response to all but one of the interrogatories, did provide a response to each of the requests

21

for production of documents, and did provide a declaration asserting an official privilege as to some

22

documents Plaintiff sought to have produced. Plaintiff disagrees with the objections Defendant

23

asserted to his discovery requests, but does not explain why Defendant’s responses were deficient.

24

Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer letter offers little assistance in understanding just what he wants from the

25

Court. In his meet-and-confer letter, he belittles Defendant and defense counsel for objecting to

26

undefined terms as being vague and ambiguous, but Plaintiff is attempting to blame Defendant for

27

his own poor drafting skills. Defendant’s objection to the vagueness and ambiguity in the

28

interrogatories was a reasonable one, as Plaintiff had (a) used numerous terms that he did not define

1

and apparently just assumed Defendant knew, and (b) posed some very confusing questions.

2

Interrogatory No. 1 provides a good example of both these problems as it asked, without any

3

definition of the terms or limitation as to time: “State in detail the similarities and differences,

4

overlap and seperation in the purvue and duties between IGI staff and non-IGI staff in the normal

5

day-to-day operations in the SHU at P.B.S.P. If this purvue and these duties are set forth in any job

6

description or other document, produce the document(s).” Docket # 50 at 3 (errors in source). In his

7

meet-and-confer letter, Plaintiff also complains that he did not receive the Soderlund Declaration

8

that was referred to in the discovery responses. The non-receipt of that declaration is now a moot

9

point because Plaintiff concedes he received that declaration two days after sending his meet-andconfer letter.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No later than September 19, 2014, Plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel a

12

supplemental statement in which he identifies each discovery response to which he wants the court

13

to compel a further response. For each discovery response for which he seeks to compel a further

14

response, Plaintiff must explain the specific inadequacy in the response he has received. If Plaintiff

15

does not file the supplemental statement by the deadline, the motion to compel will be denied. If

16

Plaintiff files a supplemental statement by the deadline, Defendant must file any opposition to the

17

motion to compel no later than September 29, 2014. Plaintiff must file his reply (if any) no later

18

than October 7, 2014.

19

Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of the motion for summary judgment is DENIED because he has

20

not made the showing necessary under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) (nonmovant must

21

show by affidavit or declaration “that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to

22

justify its opposition”). (Docket # 48.) However, in order to allow time for prompt resolution of the

23

discovery

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

1

dispute, the court now extends the briefing schedule on the pending motion for summary judgment:

2

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment must be filed with the Court and served

3

upon Defendant’s counsel no later than October 27, 2014. No further extensions of this deadline

4

should be expected. Defendant’s reply brief, if any, must be filed no later than November 10, 2014.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: September 3, 2014

9

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3