Jones v. Neven et al

Filing 147

ORDER Granting in Part 133 MOTION to Compel and Setting Hearing on 133 Motion to Compel. Motion Hearing set for 5/17/2011 09:30 AM in LV Courtroom 3A before Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 4/19/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

CHRISTOPHER A. JONES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DWIGHT NEVEN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:07-cv-01088-JCM-GWF
ORDER
Motion to Compel (#133)

12
13
14

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Christopher A. Jones’ Motion to Compel (#133),
filed March 17, 2011.

15

Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant Dwight Neven to respond substantively to

16

several requests for production and two interrogatories. (Id.) To date, no party has responded to this

17

motion and the time for opposition has now passed. LR 7-2(d) states in pertinent part, that “[t]he

18

failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a

19

consent to the granting of the motion.” As a result, the Court will grant the present motion in part and

20

order Defendant to substantively respond to requests for production nos. 3-4, 9 and 17 and interrogatory

21

no. 2.

22

In addition, because Defendant failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests,

23

Defendant shall substantively respond to requests for production nos. 3-4, 9 and 17 and interrogatory

24

no. 2 without objection. A party who fails to serve responses or objections in a timely manner has

25

waived any and all objections to discovery requests. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b), 34(b); Richmark Corp. v.

26

Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding waiver of objections due to

27

untimely response to requests for production); David v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981)

28

(finding waiver of objections due to untimely response to interrogatories). See also Senat v. City of
New York, 255 F.R.D. 338, 339 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (stating that “there is consistent authority that a failure

1

to serve timely responses to interrogatories and document requests serves as a waiver of objections.”);

2

Ramirez v. County of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407, 409-10 (C.D.Cal. 2005).

3

This order does not rule upon Plaintiff’s request to compel a substantive response to

4

interrogatory no. 1, which requests the addresses of former inmates who are not parties to this action.

5

Plaintiff indicates that the two former inmates are eye witnesses to the subject incident of this action.

6

(#133). The Court will schedule a hearing on the issue of whether Defendant should substantively

7

respond to interrogatory no. 1 and the manner the information should be provided. Accordingly,

8
9
10
11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Christopher A. Jones’ Motion to Compel (#133) is
granted in part. Defendant Neven shall substantively respond without objection to Plaintiff’s requests
for production nos. 3-4, 9 and 17 and interrogatory no. 2 by May 9, 2011.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a motion hearing is set for Tuesday, May 17, 2011 at 9:30

12

AM in LV Courtroom 3A before Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. on Plaintiff’s motion to compel

13

Defendant Neven to respond substantively to interrogatory no. 1.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Attorney General shall make arrangements for Plaintiff

15

to be available telephonically for this hearing and shall contact the Courtroom Deputy at (702) 464-

16

5418 two (2) days prior to this hearing to advise the Court of the telephone number where the plaintiff

17

may be reached the day of the hearing. The plaintiff shall be available (10) minutes prior to the hearing

18

so the Courtroom Deputy may initiate the conference call.

19

DATED this 19th day of April, 2011.

20
21
22

_____________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2