Goolsby v. Lewis et al

Filing 77

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 44 Motion for Sanctions; denying 45 Motion to Compel; denying 50 Motion to Strike ; denying 66 Motion to Strike ; granting 68 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; granting 73 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

Case No. 13-cv-03366-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER ON MOTIONS

9
10

PUGETT, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 44, 45, 50, 66, 68, 73

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

14

Plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to the courts due to the denial of requests to correspond

15

with inmates at another prison and he missed several court phone calls due to defendants. He also

16

alleges that defendants’ actions were in retaliation for his protected conduct. The parties filed

17

several motions that the Court now addresses.

18

Motion to Compel

19

A party may bring a motion to compel discovery when another party has failed to respond

20

or respond adequately to a discovery request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). A party may “obtain

21

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense” but

22

“for good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter

23

involved in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). As the moving party, plaintiff bears the burden of

24

informing the Court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and for each

25

disputed response, why defendants’ objections are not justified or why the response provided is

26

deficient.

27
28

Plaintiff filed a motion compel that is more than 300 pages with exhibits. He seeks the
Court to compel nearly every document and interrogatory request. Plaintiff’s spends 100 pages

1

discussing the discovery requests and 50 pages discussing the interrogatory requests. Defendants

2

correctly argue that this extensive vastly exceeds Local Rule 7-2(b), which limits the arguments in

3

a motion to 25 pages. Defendants still filed an opposition addressing the motion and the Court has

4

reviewed the requests and responses by defendants and will look to the merits.

5

Defendants’ responses to the discovery requests demonstrate that they provided documents

6

and answers to many of plaintiff’s requests. Defendants also note that they have continued to

7

produce documents even after the motion to compel was filed. They have served supplemental

8

responses to 49 of plaintiff’s 115 requests, and many of the issues raised in the motion to compel

9

are now moot. While plaintiff filed a letter after defendants opposed the motion to compel,
plaintiff did not address defendants’ arguments in opposition or that more information had been

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

provided.

12

Defendants contend that the remaining document requests are overly broad, burdensome,

13

and vague. For example, plaintiff requests a copy of the California Code of Regulations Title 15,

14

the Department Operations Manual, and the Pelican Bay Operations Manual. Only small portions

15

of these documents relate the subject matter of this case and these documents are available to

16

plaintiff in the prison law library. Plaintiff requests that each defendant provide all documents or

17

emails signed by each defendant in the course of their work that state plaintiff’s name from 2012

18

to the present. This request is overly broad and burdensome. Plaintiff also requests that

19

defendants provide all documents that support their contention that they did not violate his rights.

20

This request is vague and ambiguous. The remaining requests are also overly broad, burdensome,

21

or vague.

22

With respect to the interrogatory requests, defendants provided answers to many questions,

23

but it appears that plaintiff is not satisfied with the answers. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the

24

Court should compel additional answers. For all these reasons the motion to compel is denied.

25

Miscellaneous Motions

26

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and motion to strike the motion to dismiss and motion for

27

summary judgment are denied as meritless. Plaintiff’s motion to file a lengthy opposition to the

28

dispositive motion is granted and the Court will consider the filing.
2

CONCLUSION

1
2

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket No. 45) is DENIED.

3

2.

Defendants’ motion to strike the motion to compel (Docket No. 50) is DENIED as

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Docket No. 44) and motion to strike the motion to

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

moot.

dismiss and motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 66) are DENIED.
4.

Defendants’ motion for an extension (Docket No. 68) is GRANTED and the filing

is deemed timely filed.
5.

Plaintiff’s motion to file a lengthy opposition to the motion to dismiss and motion

for summary judgment (Docket No. 73) is GRANTED.
6.

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

12

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

13

Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

14

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

15

Civil Procedure 41(b).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2015

18
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

Case No. 13-cv-03366-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

PUGETT, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on November 17, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19

Thomas Goolsby
PBSP D-8-224
F-19778
P.O. Box 7500
Crescent City, CA 95532

20
21

Dated: November 17, 2015

22
23
24

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4