1 2
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 MITCHELL GARRAWAY, 1:17-cv-00533-DAD-GSA-PC
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 vs. (ECF No. 66.)
14 JACQUILINE CIUFO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 19 Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s 20 original Complaint filed on April 17, 2017, against defendants Jacqueline Ciufo (Unit Manager), 21 K. Miller (Corrections Officer), and Lieutenant J. Zaragoza (collectively, “Defendants”), for 22 failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) 23 On November 27, 2018, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting forth a 24 discovery deadline of May 25, 2019, and a dispositive motions deadline of July 27, 2019. (ECF 25 No. 26.) On February 26, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, 26 concerning whether Plaintiff’s Bivens claims were barred under Ziglar v. Abassi, 137 S.Ct. 1843 27 (2017). (ECF No. 42.) On April 1, 2019, the court issued an order staying discovery with the 28 exception of discovery related to whether Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Abassi, pending 1 resolution of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 65.) The parties were advised 2 that if they had been served with discovery requests that did not relate to Abassi they should 3 retain the discovery for later consideration after the stay had been lifted. (ECF No. 65 at 3:22- 4 23.) 5 On April 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 66.) The motion to 6 compel did not concern the Abassi issue, and Defendants have not yet filed a response to the 7 motion. 8 On February 21, 2020, the court resolved Defendants’ motion for judgment on the 9 pleadings. (ECF No. 94.) Accordingly, on March 4, 2020, the court issued an order lifting the 10 stay of discovery, setting a new discovery deadline of June 5, 2020, and setting a new dispositive 11 motions deadline of August 5, 2020. (ECF No. 97.) 12 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is now before the court. 13 II. MOTION TO COMPEL 14 A. Legal Standards 15 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern discovery in this civil action. The discovery 16 process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of discovery 17 responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 18 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties may obtain discovery 19 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense, including the 20 existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other 21 tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). For good cause, the court may order 23 discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Id. (quotation 24 marks omitted). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears 25 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. (quotation marks 26 omitted). 27 Pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party propounding 28 discovery may seek an order compelling disclosure when an opposing party has failed to respond 1 or has provided evasive or incomplete responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). “[A]n evasive or 2 incomplete disclosure, answer, or response is to be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or 3 respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating “actual 4 and substantial prejudice” from the denial of discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 5 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 6 Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to 7 compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g., Grabek v. 8 Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); 9 Womack v. Virga, No.CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell v. Felker, 10 No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 11 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires 12 the moving party to inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to 13 compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why the 14 responding party’s objections are not meritorious. Id. However, the court is vested with broad 15 discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these procedures, and Plaintiff is entitled to 16 leniency as a pro se litigator; therefore, to the extent possible, the court endeavors to resolve his 17 motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); 18 Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett, 296 19 F.3d at 751. 20 B. Plaintiff’s Motion 21 Plaintiff argues that Defendants have provided evasive responses to his Requests for 22 Admissions and Interrogatories, which are attached as exhibits to the motion to compel. Plaintiff 23 asserts that Defendants refuse to supply him with the names and current places of BOP 24 employment for potential witnesses whose testimony Plaintiff believes is crucial to his case. 25 Plaintiff claims that Defendants have denied him a reasonable opportunity to present evidence 26 that he believes is pertinent to his case. Plaintiff requests a court order compelling Defendants 27 to disclose all of the information Plaintiff requested in his Requests for Admissions and 28 Interrogatories attached to his motion to compel as Exhibits E, F, G, and H. 1 C. Discussion 2 Plaintiff requests the court to compel Defendants to provide responses to 25 Requests for 3 Admissions, along with 25 Interrogatories attached to his motion to compel as Exhibits E, F, G, 4 and H. (ECF No. 66 at 30-42.)1 Also attached to the motion as Exhibits A, B, C, and D are 5 Defendants’ prior responses to the discovery requests. (ECF No. 66 at 5-29.) 6 Defendants object to every one of Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, but they also 7 admitted or denied each of the Requests. Defendants have only made objections to each of 8 Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and have not provided any responses to the Interrogatories. 9 Plaintiff failed to individually address the discovery responses at issue in his motion to 10 compel. Thus, he has not put Defendants on notice as to the alleged deficiencies of each of their 11 responses.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 MITCHELL GARRAWAY, 1:17-cv-00533-DAD-GSA-PC
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 vs. (ECF No. 66.)
14 JACQUILINE CIUFO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 19 Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s 20 original Complaint filed on April 17, 2017, against defendants Jacqueline Ciufo (Unit Manager), 21 K. Miller (Corrections Officer), and Lieutenant J. Zaragoza (collectively, “Defendants”), for 22 failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) 23 On November 27, 2018, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting forth a 24 discovery deadline of May 25, 2019, and a dispositive motions deadline of July 27, 2019. (ECF 25 No. 26.) On February 26, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, 26 concerning whether Plaintiff’s Bivens claims were barred under Ziglar v. Abassi, 137 S.Ct. 1843 27 (2017). (ECF No. 42.) On April 1, 2019, the court issued an order staying discovery with the 28 exception of discovery related to whether Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Abassi, pending 1 resolution of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 65.) The parties were advised 2 that if they had been served with discovery requests that did not relate to Abassi they should 3 retain the discovery for later consideration after the stay had been lifted. (ECF No. 65 at 3:22- 4 23.) 5 On April 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 66.) The motion to 6 compel did not concern the Abassi issue, and Defendants have not yet filed a response to the 7 motion. 8 On February 21, 2020, the court resolved Defendants’ motion for judgment on the 9 pleadings. (ECF No. 94.) Accordingly, on March 4, 2020, the court issued an order lifting the 10 stay of discovery, setting a new discovery deadline of June 5, 2020, and setting a new dispositive 11 motions deadline of August 5, 2020. (ECF No. 97.) 12 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is now before the court. 13 II. MOTION TO COMPEL 14 A. Legal Standards 15 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern discovery in this civil action. The discovery 16 process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of discovery 17 responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 18 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties may obtain discovery 19 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense, including the 20 existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other 21 tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). For good cause, the court may order 23 discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Id. (quotation 24 marks omitted). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears 25 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. (quotation marks 26 omitted). 27 Pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party propounding 28 discovery may seek an order compelling disclosure when an opposing party has failed to respond 1 or has provided evasive or incomplete responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). “[A]n evasive or 2 incomplete disclosure, answer, or response is to be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or 3 respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating “actual 4 and substantial prejudice” from the denial of discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 5 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 6 Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to 7 compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g., Grabek v. 8 Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); 9 Womack v. Virga, No.CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell v. Felker, 10 No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 11 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires 12 the moving party to inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to 13 compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why the 14 responding party’s objections are not meritorious. Id. However, the court is vested with broad 15 discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these procedures, and Plaintiff is entitled to 16 leniency as a pro se litigator; therefore, to the extent possible, the court endeavors to resolve his 17 motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); 18 Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett, 296 19 F.3d at 751. 20 B. Plaintiff’s Motion 21 Plaintiff argues that Defendants have provided evasive responses to his Requests for 22 Admissions and Interrogatories, which are attached as exhibits to the motion to compel. Plaintiff 23 asserts that Defendants refuse to supply him with the names and current places of BOP 24 employment for potential witnesses whose testimony Plaintiff believes is crucial to his case. 25 Plaintiff claims that Defendants have denied him a reasonable opportunity to present evidence 26 that he believes is pertinent to his case. Plaintiff requests a court order compelling Defendants 27 to disclose all of the information Plaintiff requested in his Requests for Admissions and 28 Interrogatories attached to his motion to compel as Exhibits E, F, G, and H. 1 C. Discussion 2 Plaintiff requests the court to compel Defendants to provide responses to 25 Requests for 3 Admissions, along with 25 Interrogatories attached to his motion to compel as Exhibits E, F, G, 4 and H. (ECF No. 66 at 30-42.)1 Also attached to the motion as Exhibits A, B, C, and D are 5 Defendants’ prior responses to the discovery requests. (ECF No. 66 at 5-29.) 6 Defendants object to every one of Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, but they also 7 admitted or denied each of the Requests. Defendants have only made objections to each of 8 Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and have not provided any responses to the Interrogatories. 9 Plaintiff failed to individually address the discovery responses at issue in his motion to 10 compel. Thus, he has not put Defendants on notice as to the alleged deficiencies of each of their 11 responses. Here, Plaintiff’s vague assertions that Defendants have provided evasive responses, 12 refused to supply him with the names and current places of employment for potential witnesses, 13 and denied him a reasonable opportunity to present his evidence, are not sufficient to support the 14 motion to compel. Plaintiff does not individually address any particular discovery request and 15 does not demonstrate that any specific response thereto is deficient. Consequently, Plaintiff’s 16 motion to compel shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion within thirty days. 17 Plaintiff is advised that any future motion to compel must individually analyze each 18 discovery request and response and set forth arguments to explain how Defendants’ objections 19 to each request are improper. Plaintiff’s motion to compel must notify Defendants how each 20 response is deficient. Specifically, the motion to compel must: 1) set forth each disputed request 21 exactly as Plaintiff phrased it in his original request, 2) set forth Defendants’ response exactly as 22 Defendants phrased it in their original response, and 3) address each objection made by 23 Defendants and explain how each objection is improper. Plaintiff may not raise his arguments 24 for the first time in his reply brief, and may not simply file a motion to compel that identifies the 25 discovery requests in dispute and then provide only vague and general conclusions regarding the 26 inadequacy of Defendants’ responses.
27 1 All page numbers cited herein are those assigned by the court's CM/ECF system and are not 28 based on the parties’ pagination of their briefing materials. 1 As the moving party, Plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court which discovery 2 requests are the subject of his motion to compel and, for each disputed response, why 3 Defendants’ objection is not justified. Plaintiff has not done so. Plaintiff may not simply assert 4 that he has served discovery requests, that he is dissatisfied with Defendants’ objections, and that 5 he wants an order compelling responses. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be 6 denied as procedurally defective, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of 7 the proceedings. 8 III. CONCLUSION 9 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel, 10 filed on April 1, 2019, is DENIED as procedurally defective, without prejudice to renewal of the 11 motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13
14 Dated: March 9, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28