Grizzle v. San Diego, County of

Opinion

2 5 6 8 □ □ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 0 . | □

11 || ELLIOT SCOTT GRIZZLE, | _ Case No.: 17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Paint! ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 14 || COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., | RESPONSES ro WRITLEN THER 15 _ Defendants.| DISCOVERY 16 [Doe. 137] 17 19 On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff Elliot Scott Grizzle (“Plaintiff”), through his 20 lcounsel, filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 21 (“Section 1983”). (Doc. 110.) Plaintiff asserts claims against the County of San Diego 22 (“County”), Sheriff William Gore (“Sheriff Gore”), Lieutenant Lena Lovelace 23 (“Lieutenant Lovelace”), and Aaron Boorman (“Sergeant Boorman”) (collectively 24 “Defendants”).! (Id) 25 On April 14, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel (“MTC”) further responses 26 written discovery, wherein they seek to have their Requests for Admission (“RFA”), Set 27 {J 28 ! On August 17, 2020, the Court dismissed all causes of action against Defendant Eric Froistad without prejudice. (See Doc. 120 at 9.)

I }}One, be deemed admitted and seek to compel further responses to their interrogatories, Set 2 One, and Requests for Production (“RFP”), Set One. In addition, Defendants request that 3 the Court award reasonable expenses in the amount of $1,442.10 for recovery of attorney’s 4 fees incurred in bringing this motion. (Doc. 137-1 at 2.) Plaintiff filed an Opposition to 5 MTC (“Opposition”) on April 28, 2021. (Doc. 139.) Defendants filed a Reply on May 6 2021: (Doc. 140.) 7 For the reasons outlined below, Defendants’ MITC is GRANTED IN PART and 8 DENIEDINPART. □ oo 9 I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 10 A. Surviving Causes of Action in TAC 11 The claims in this case are based on Plaintiff's placement in Administrative 12 Segregation (“Ad-Seg”) between August 3, 2016 through August 27, 2017 at the San Diego 13 Central J ail (“SDCJS”) while he was a pretrial detainee. (Doc. 110.) This case had a lengthy 14 \initial pleading stage which ultimately concluded after the Court issued a ruling on 15 Defendants’. motion to dismiss and strike portions of the TAC. (Docs. 11 1, 116, 120.) The 16 TAC’s surviving causes of action are as follows: the first cause of action alleges Fourteenth 17 Amendment due process violations against the County and Lieutenant Lovelace as to 18 Plaintiffs Ad-Seg placement while housed at SDCJ; the second, third, and fourth causes -19 || of action allege Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment violations against all Defendants with 20 regard to sleep deprivation, prevention from exercising and being forced to choose between 21 sleep and exercise. (Doc. 110 at "4 43-76; see also Docs. 116, 120.) Although the Court 22 dismissed Plaintiff’ s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief, the TAC seeks recovery 23 of compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and fees. (Doc. 110 at 22; see also Docs. 24 120.) 25 B. Instant Motion 26 _ The instant MTC is based on Plaintiff s alleged: failure to provide complete 27 responses to Defendants’ first set of written discovery requests originally served on 28 November 24, 2020, including RFAs, Interrogatories, and RFPs. (Docs. 137-1 at 3; Doc.

1 {| 137-2, Defs.’ Ex. A at 9, Defs.’ Ex. E at 40, Defs.’ Ex. I at 101.) After extensive meet and 2 confer efforts via telephone and email, three sets of supplemental responses served by 3 Plaintiff? and. an informal telephonic discovery conference with the ‘undersigned, 4 Defendants filed the instant motion on April 14, 2021 at 3:57pm. (Doc. 137.) Hours later, 5 fon April 14, 2021 at 10:25pm, Plaintiff served final verified supplemental responses to 6 Defendants via email. (Doc. 139 at 1, PL.’s Ex. A at 4, Pl.’s Ex. C at 9-60.) Despite 7 PlaintifPs April 14, 2021 supplemental responses, Defendants contend □□□□□□□□□□□ 8 responses to Interrogatories and RFPs remain deficient. (Doc. 140.) 9 ill. LEGAL STANDARD 10 A party is entitled to seek discovery of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to 11 / his claims and proportional to the needs of the case. FED. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “The party 12 seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that his request satisfies the 13 relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).” Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 07¢v200 JM (PCL), 2009 14 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (citing Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 15 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995)), District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy 16 for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir, 2002). 17 jf . 18 ? Plaintiff provided “preliminary” unverified responses to the RFAs, Interrogatories, and 19 RFPs on January 23, 2021, and later produced verification pages on February 25, 2021. (Doc. 137-1 at 3; Doc. 137-2, Defs.’ Ex. B at 11-17, Defs.’ Ex. F at 42-54, Defs.’ Ex. J at 20 103-128.) On March 8, 2021, Plaintiff served unverified supplemental responses to the 71 foregoing discovery. (Doc. 137-2 at Defs.’ Ex. D at 19-25, Defs.’ Ex. G at 55-71.) After an informal discovery conference with the undersigned’s chambers on March 10, 2021, 22 Plaintiff served another set of unverified supplemental responses to the RFAs, 73 Interrogatories, and RFPs. (Doc. 137-2 at 2, 8; see also Defs.’ Ex. E at 27-32, Defs.’ Ex. H at 73-90, Defs.’ Ex. K at 130-157.) 24 On March 10, 2021, the parties contacted the undersigned’s chambers for an informal 95 discovery conference. (Doc. 133.) The Court set a telephonic discovery conference for March 16, 2021. (Doc. 136.) At the conference, the parties stipulated to □□□□□□□□□□□ 26 production of verified responses to the RFAs and Interrogatories and amended responses 97 to the RFPs on or before April 2, 2021. (Doc. 136.) Plaintiff did not timely serve verified and amended discovery per the parties’ stipulation. (Doc. 137-2 at 3, § 11.) □□□□□□□□□□□ 28 counsel alleges he timely notified Defendants’ counsel of the delay in production, which he contends was caused by mail delays. (Doc. 139 at 1.) □

1 “Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that discovery should 2 be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining[,] or supporting its objections.” 3 Bryant, 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (citing DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 4 1/(C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2002)). District courts have broad discretion to limit discovery, where 5 the discovery sought, is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from 6 }some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” FED. R. 7 Crv. P. 26(b)(2)(C). . 8 : IV. DISCUSSION 9 A. Meet & Confer Efforts . 10 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 26.1 (a), the Court will not entertain a motion to compel 11 )made under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26-37 unless the parties have previously met 12 /and conferred concerning all discovery disputes. CivLR 26.1(a).. As outlined above, the 13 parties extensively met and conferred and attempted to resolve their discovery dispute at 14 informal discovery conference before the undersigned. See supra, pp. 2-3. As such, 15 the MTC will be considered on the merits. 16 B. Plaintiff's Responses to RFAs, Set One . 17 The opening brief of Defendant’s MTC requested that the Court deem RFA Nos. 1- 18 admitted based upon Plaintiff's failure to provide unqualified admissions or denials. 19 (Doc. 137-1 at 4-8.) However, Defendants’ Reply stipulates that “the issues involving . . 20 . [RFA Nos. 1-5] [are] resolved.” (Doc. 140 at 2.) Therefore, Defendants’ request to deem 21 Nos. 1-5 admitted is DENIED ASMOOT. 22° C. Plaintiff's Responses to Interrogatories, Set One 23 As to the Interrogatories served on November 24, 2020 (Doc. 137-2, Defs.’ Ex. E at 24 34-40), Defendants contend Plaintiff failed to fully respond to Interrogatory Nos. 1-6, 8- 25 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20-21, and 23-24, despite Plaintiff's verified supplemental 26 /responses dated April 2, 2021 and served via email on April 14, 2021 (Doc. 139, Pl. Ex. C 27 at 43-60). (Doc. 137-1 at 8; Doc. 140 at 2.) Plaintiff's Opposition does not respond to the 28 discovery deficiencies raised by Defendants, nor does he reassert any objections to the

1 /underlying Interrogatories. (Doc. 139.) Rather, Plaintiff contends the MTC is moot 2 because he served supplemental responses where necessary. (/d. at 2.) 3 Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs interrogatory practice. FED. 4 R. Crv. P. 33. As to an interrogatory’s scope, it “may relate to any matter that may be 5 inquired into under Rule 26(b).” FED. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must

_ © answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate objection(s) with specificity or, to the 7 extent the interrogatory is not objected to, by “answerfing] separately and fully in writing 8 under oath.” FrD.R.CIv.P.33(6). 9 When considering motions to compel, courts in this district “generally consider[] 10 only those objections that have been timely asserted in the initial response to the discovery request and that are subsequently reasserted and relied upon in response to the motion to 12 compel.” See SolarCity Corp. v. Doria, No. 16cv3085, 2018 WL 467898, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 13 Jan. 18, 2018); Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Earl Scheib of Cal., Inc., No. 12¢v2646-JAH- JMA, 2013 WL 12073836, at *2 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013) (deeming objections raised 15 response to discovery request but not raised in discovery motion as moot or waived). 16 Since Plaintiff did not reassert any objections to any Interrogatory in his Opposition 17 \to the MTC, these objections are deemed waived. As such, the Court will only analyze the _18 ||completeness of each Interrogatory response. See FED. R. CIv. P. 33(b). 19 i. Interrogatory Nos. L, 2, 3, 4, and 6 20 -. Defendants raise several issues with Plaintiffs responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 21 3, 4, and 6. (Doc. 137-1 at 9.) Defendants contend the responses improperly refer to 22 records, some of which the County does not possess which makes it impossible to extract 23 information from the referenced records. (/d.) Plaintiff's verified responses to these 24 Interrogatories dated April 2, 2021 solely refer to medical records from SDJC and the 25 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). (Doc. 139, PI.’s Ex. 26 at 45-50.) However, in reviewing Plaintiff's response to RFP No. 3 (1e., requesting all 27 documents for medical treatment Plaintiff received from five years prior to the incident to 28 present), Plaintiff produced these referenced records to Defendants. (Doc. 139, Pl.’s Ex.

□

1 at 18.) Therefore, Defendants’ argument as to the lack of access to the referenced records 2 /is not well-taken. □ For Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, Defendants ask Plaintiff to “describe any physical, 4 )emotional, or mental condition” Plaintiff experienced before and after the incident. (Doc. 5 137-2, Defs.’ Ex. E at 35.) Plaintiff provided detailed, responsive information as to his 6 conditions and he alleges the symptoms subsided “once Plaintiff left the custody of the 7 [SDCJ].” (Doc. 139, Pl.’s Ex. C at 45-47.) For these reasons, Defendants’ MTC as to 8 Interrogatory Nos. 1-3 is DENIED. 9 In Interrogatory No. 4, Defendants ask Plaintiff to “identify all health care or mental 10 health providers YOU received treatment from for. injuries YOU attribute to this il |} INCIDENT.” (Doc. 137-2, Defs.’ Ex. E at 36.) Instead of identifying any specific 12 providers, Plaintiff referred to his SDCJ and CDCR medical records, which were 13 concurrently produced in response to RFP No. 3. (Doc. 139, Pl.’s Ex. C at 18.) Rule 33(d) 14 provides that if an answer may be ascertained from a party’s business records, and if the burden of ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the 16 responding party may answer by specifying the records to be reviewed or giving the 17 interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine the records. But even when Rule 18 33(d) may be utilized, the responding party must specify the records that must be reviewed 19 “in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily 20 the responding party could[.]” See FED. R. Civ. P. 33(d)(1).. While Defendants are 21 already in possession of Plaintif? s medical records from SDCJ and CDCR, □□□□□□□□□□□ 22 response is deficient because it solely refers to medical records without providing any detail 23 for purposes of enabling Defendants to ascertain the treatment Plaintiff obtained for which 24 he attributes to the claims at issue. See FED. R. Crv. P. 33(d)(1); see also Vaught v. Clark, 25 No. 2:09-cv-3422 MCE CKD P, 2012 WL 5381518, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2012) 26 i(granting motion to compel answer to interrogatory seeking contact information of 27 providers when pro se prisoner’s responses solely referred to medical records); McClellan 28 y. Kern Cnty. Sheriff's Office, No. 1:10-cv-0386-LJO-MJS (PC), 2015 WL 4598871, at *5

. £

1 /(E.D. Cal. July 28, 2015) (granting motion to compel response to interrogatory requesting 2 identification of health care providers that treated pro se prisoner while at CDCR and Kern 3 County Sheriff's Department); Shorter v. Baca, No. CV 12-7337-JVS-AGR, 2013 WL 4 12133826, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2013) (compelling plaintiff to disclose witnesses she 5 use to support her claims). For these reasons, Defendants’ MTC as to Interrogatory 6 No. 4 is GRANTED. 7 In Interrogatory No. 6, Defendants ask Plaintiff to “identify any and all health care 8 providers, including mental health and substance abuse providers that have treated [him] 9 in the last ten years.” (Doc. 137-2, Defs.” Ex. E at 36.) After again referring to SDCJ and 10 CDCR records, Plaintiff responds he was “treated by various San Diego County doctors, 11 nurses, nurse practitioners, psychiatrists, psychologists, and other health care 12 professionals” including CDCR and jail staff. (Doc. 139, Pl.’s Ex. C at 49-50.) The 13 Interrogatory is not limited to Plaintiff's time as a pretrial detainee (ie., from August 3, 14 }2016 and August 27, 2017)}—it seeks identification of all providers from 2011 through 15 ]2021. (Doc. 137-2, Defs.’ Ex. E at 36.) Because Plaintiff is claiming physical, mental, 16 and emotional injuries as a result of his confinement, the requested information is relevant 17 and necessary for Defendants to prepare their defense. (See Doc. 110 at 10, § 29); see also FED. R. Crv. P. 26(b)(1). Additionally, seeking identification of these providers for the last 19 decade is sufficiently limited in scope, as it seeks records pre-dating his confinement by 20 five years. McClellan, 2015 WL 4598871, at *5 (compelling answer to interrogatory 21 seeking identification of health care providers for last ten years); see also Baca, 2013 WL 22 12133826, at *2 (compelling answer to interrogatory seeking identity of health care 23 providers and diagnoses within the five-year period preceding the incident). Therefore, 24 Defendants’ MTC as to Interrogatory No. 6 is GRANTED. 25 ii. Interrogatory No. 5 26 In Interrogatory No. 5, Defendants ask Plaintiff to “describe all grievances, inmate 27 request[s], or other correspondence or appeals [he] submitted to the [SDCJ] or its staff 28 regarding the [incident].” (Doc. 137-2, Defs.’ Ex. E at 36.) In response, Plaintiff provides □ □

1 lengthy list of grievances, including the date and content of the grievance, submitted 2 ; while Plaintiff was in custody. (Doc. 139, PI.’s Ex. C at 47-49.) He supplemented his 3 /response stating, “I also submitted a substantial number of grievances relating to being 4 placed in segregation/solitary confinement without expl[a}nation or cause, not being 5 allowed yard or outdoor recreation [and] being kept awake or woken frequently that went 6 unanswered.” (id. at 49.) Plaintiff's response refers Defendants to his “JIMS log for 7 further details on grievances submitted and any possible response given.”* (Jd. at 47.) 8 While Defendants contend Plaintiff's response is incomplete, they offer no explanation as 9 to how the burden of ascertaining the answer through examination of Plaintiff's JIMS 10 records is not substantially the same for either party. See FED. R. CIv. P. 33(d); see also 11. Fresenius Med. Care Holding Inc. v. Baxter Int’l., Inc., 224 F.R.D. 644, 650 (N.D. Cal. 12 2004) (“In order for a party to take advantage of the alternative procedure set forth in Rule 13 }33(d) the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer must be substantially the same for 14 the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served ...”). For these reasons, 15 Defendants’ MTC as to Interrogatory No. 5 is DENIED. 16 iii. Interrogatory Nos. 8, Ll, 14, 17, 20, and 23 17 In Interrogatory Nos. 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, and 23, Defendants ask Plaintiff to identify 18 any documents that support his alleged claims, therefore, they are addressed together for 19 purposes of this MTC. (Doc. 137-2, Defs.’ Ex. E at 36-38.) Plaintiff refers Defendants to 20 JIMS records, which consist of copies of grievances submitted while in custody. (Doc. 21 at 52-59.) Additionally, Plaintiff references his letter to Sheriff Gore regarding 22 Plaintiffs complaint with the conditions of his confinement and Sergeant Boorman’s 23 response. (/d.): In Interrogatory Nos. 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, and 23, Plaintiff inappropriately 24 cross-references his response to Interrogatory No. 5 which details all grievances, inmate 25 requests, and other correspondence or appeals Plaintiff submitted to SDJC. See FED. R. 26 Crv. P. 33(b)(3) (answers to interrogatories must be answered separately and fully); see

28 To □ * JIMS refers to the jail information management system. oS

1 McClellan, 2015 WL 4598871, at *5 (finding response to interrogatory cross-referencing 2 previous interrogatory insufficient based upon Rule 33(b)(3)’s completeness requirement). 3 Without consideration to the inappropriate cross-reference to Interrogatory No. 5, Plaintiff 4 specifies the records that must be reviewed in sufficient detail to enable Defendants to 5' || ascertain the answer to the Interrogatories. See FED. R. CIv. P. 33(d); see also Fresenius 6 Med. Care Holding Inc., 224 F.R.D. at 650. For these reasons, Defendants’ MTC as to 7 Interrogatory Nos. 8, 11, 14, 17,20, and23isDENIED. = >

8 iv. Interrogatory Nos. 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24 9 In Interrogatory Nos. 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24, Defendants ask Plaintiff to identify 10 fall witnesses that have knowledge of any facts that support Plaintiff's claims, therefore, 11 they are addressed together. (Doc. 137-2, Defs.’ Ex. E at 36-38.) In response, Plaintiff 12 states the identification of the other inmates and deputies present during the relevant time 13 frame is readily accessible to Defendants through JIMS records and/or jail housing logs 14 /and personnel schedules. (Doc. 139, Pl. Ex. C at 51-60.) Additionally, in response to 15 Interrogatory No. 12’s request for identification of witnesses who may have knowledge of 16 Plaintiff's claim that he exhausted administrative remedies, Plaintiff explains “when 17 deputies did sign for grievances they listed their badge numbers instead of their names at 18 times and [P]laintiff cannot identify those individuals by name...” (/d. at 52-53.) 19 With respect to identifying SDCJ deputies that may have knowledge of facts that 20 support Plaintiff's claims, Plaintiff specifies the records that must be reviewed in sufficient 21 detail to enable Defendants to ascertain the answer. FED. R. CIv. P. 33(d). However, 22 Plaintiff should supplement his responses to affirmatively state whether he can identify 23 witnesses other than SDCJ employees who may have knowledge of facts to support 24 Plaintiff's claims, See Jones v. Walinga, No. 1:19-cv-396-DAD-HBK, 2021 WL 2474500, 25 *2 (ED. Cal. June 17, 2021) (compelling answer to interrogatory seeking identities of 26 plaintiff's inmate witnesses who support plaintiff's claims). Therefore, Defendants’ MTC 27 as to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 28 PART. Plaintiff must supplement his responses no later than August 24,2021. □

1 D. Plaintiff's Responses to RFPs, SetOne = 2 As to RFP Nos. 1-48 served on November 24, 2020 (Doc. 137-2, Defs.’ Ex. I at 3 101), Defendants contend Plaintiff failed to unequivocally respond whether he produced 4 /all items in his possession, custody, or control. (Doc. 137-1 at 10.) Defendants took issue 5 with the phrasing of Plaintiff's March 8, 2021 supplemental responses which stated, 6 “[w]ithout waiving any right of objection plaintiff responds as follows: After diligent 7 search and inquiry plaintiff produced all unobjectionable documents currently in his 8 possession, custody, or control with objections as stated in writing.” (Doc. 137-1 at 10; 9 see also Defs.’ Ex. K at 132-156 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff's April 14, 2021 10 supplemental responses are phrased slightly differently as follows, “{w]ithout waiving any 11 \right of objection whatsoever plaintiff responds as follows: After diligent search and 12 inquiry plaintiff produced all documents currently in his possession, custody, or control 13 with objections as stated in writing.” (Doc. 139, P1.’s Ex. C at 15-42.) Despite the revised 14 phrasing, Defendants contend the responses are still evasive and imply items are being 15 withheld. (Doc. 140 at 3.) 16 A party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule 26(b). 17 FED. R. Civ. P. 34{a). “For each item or category, the response must either state that 18 inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the 19 request, including the reasons.” FED. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). An objection must state 20 whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. FED. 21 R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the part obj ected to 22 permit inspection or production of the rest. Jd. The responding party is responsible 23 the production of all items in “the responding party’s possession, custody, or control.” 24 FED. R. Crv. P. 34(a)(1). 25 Plaintiff? s qualified responses stating “with objections as stated in writing” is 26 evasive because it does not indicate whether any responsive materials are being withheld 27 on the basis of that objection. See FED. R. Civ. P.34(b)(2\(C). For this reason, Defendants’. 28

1 MTC as to RFP Nos. 1-48 is GRANTED. Plaintiff must serve amended responses no later than August 24, 2021. 3 E. Reasonable Expenses 4 Defendants request the Court award them reasonable expenses incurred in bringing 5 this MTC, which comprise of attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,442.10. (Doc. 137 at 2.) 6 i The Declaration of Jennifer Martin alleges counsel spent 5.7 hours preparing the MTC at 7 an hourly rate of $253.00. (Doc. 137-2 at 4.) Plaintiff asks the Court to deny any request 8 for sanctions as Plaintiff served verified supplemental responses. (Doc. 139 at 2.) Other 9 the foregoing statement, Plaintiff does not specifically address Defendants’ request -10 || for reasonable expenses incurred. (id.) However, Plaintiff alleges he “acted as diligently 11 possible in relaying the written discovery between the County and [his] client.” Ud.) □ 12 In determining the reasonableness of a party’s request for payment of expenses, including attorney’s fees, courts must consider whether circumstances exist that make an 14 award of expenses unjust. FED. R. Crv. P. 37(a)(5){A)(iit). If the motion is granted in part 15 denied in part, the court “may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the 16 } reasonable expenses for the motion.” FED. R. Crv. P. 37(a)(5)(C) (emphasis added). 17 Given that this motion was granted in part and denied in part, the Court, in its 18 discretion, declines ‘to apportion reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees. See Williams v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 17-cv-00815-MMA (JLB), 2019 WL 2330227, at *11 20 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2019) (court declined to apportion reasonable expenses because motion 21 compel granted and denied in part). Additionally, the underlying circumstances of this 22 discovery dispute would make an award of expenses unjust. Viewing Plaintiff's discovery 23 /responses in totality, Plaintiff made a good-faith effort to provide responsive information 24 and supplement discovery when requested. Although the meet and confer process and 25 supplemental productions of discovery spanned over the course of several months, Plaintiff 26 is a prisoner and his counsel dealt with delays in transmitting information to his client. (See 27 Doc. 139 at 1.) Considering all of the foregoing, Defendants’ request for payment of 28 expenses is DENIED. □

Vv. CONCLUSION 2) For the foregoing reasons and as outlined in detail above, the undersigned GRANTS 3 IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants’ MTC. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 4 a) The MTC as to RFA Nos. 1-5 is DENIED AS MOOT; 5 (2) The MTC as to Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, and 23 is 6 DENIED; 7 (3) . The MTC as to Interrogatory No. 4 and 6 is GRANTED; 8 (4) The MTC as to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24 is GRANTED IN 9 PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff must supplement his ‘responses 10 no later than August 24, 2021; . □ 11 (5) The MTC as to RFP Nos. I-48 is GRANTED. Plaintiff must serve amended 12 responses no later than August 24, 2021; — 13 (6) Defendants’ request for reasonable expenses incurred in bringing this MTC, 14 comprising of attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,442.10, is DENIED. 16 Dated: August 10, 2021 I CPB oruda Qloittoagu) 18 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 19 : UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 . . 22 □ 23 24 □ 25 26 27 28