(PC) Puckett v. Moreno

Opinion

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, Case No. 2:22-cv-00650-WBS-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL AND HIS MOTION FOR D. MORENO, et al., DISCOVERY SANCTIONS, GRANTING HIS SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL IN Defendants. PART, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ECF Nos. 42, 43, 53, & 57

Plaintiff brought this action on April 12, 2022, and, on January 23, 2023, I found that the second amended complaint stated a viable Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against defendants Moreno, Haynes, Smith, and Williams. ECF No. 15. Now pending are two of plaintiff’s motions to compel, ECF Nos. 42 & 53, and one motion for discovery sanctions, ECF No. 43. I will deny his first motion to compel and his motion for sanctions. His second motion to compel will be granted in part. Finally, plaintiff’s motion for extension, ECF No. 57, of time will be denied. First Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s first motion to compel, ECF No. 42, asserts that defendants inadequately replied to interrogatories and requests for admission that he propounded in October 2023. Id. at 1. As defendants point out in their opposition, however, the motion to compel does not specifically describe the inadequacy of the responses. ECF No. 47 at 2. Plaintiff has attached the interrogatories and requests for admission at issue, but he has done little more than underline the responses that he feels are inadequate. ECF No. 42 at 3. It behooves the party moving to compel to explain why the non-moving party’s responses or objections are insufficient. Williams v. Cate, No. 1:09-cv-00468-LJO-JLT (PC), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143862, *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2011) (“[A]s the moving party, Plaintiff bears the burden of informing the Court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and, for each disputed response, why Defendant’s objection is not justified.”). Accordingly, this motion to compel is denied without prejudice. Motion for Discovery Sanctions In conjunction with his first motion to compel, plaintiff has also filed a motion for discovery sanctions. ECF No. 43. Given my denial of plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 42, and absent evidence that defendants have abused the discovery process, I find no basis on which to sanction defendants. This motion is denied. Second Motion to Compel In his second motion to compel, plaintiff states that he needs three requests for production “resolved.” ECF No. 53 at 1, 3-4. He has attached a copy of the requests at issue, id. at 3-4, but does not explain how defendants’ objections are erroneous or inadequate. As noted above, the moving party bears the burden of showing that the non-moving party’s responses and/or objections are insufficient. He also references three interrogatories and argues that defendants’ answers are “evasive and incomplete.” Id. at 1. The first of these interrogatories (number four of the set) asks: “Can you explain years and months of training to deal with mental health issues?” Id. at 6. Defendants objected to the interrogatory as overbroad, not relevant to plaintiff’s claims or any affirmative defenses, and not leading to the discovery of any relevant material. Id. Defendants’ objections are well taken. The interrogatory, as worded, is too vague and confusingly worded to be effectively answered. I cannot tell whether plaintiff is asking whether defendants have “years and months” of mental health training, whether some other individuals have such training, or if he is referencing some specific training that someone relevant to this case is alleged to have undergone. In his motion, however, plaintiff makes clear that he is asking after defendants’ mental health training. Id. at 1. I will compel defendants to provide plaintiff with that information. The second interrogatory (number seven of the set) simply asks, “Did Ms. Hunter give me my meds?” Id. at 7. Defendants objected to this interrogatory as overbroad, not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant material, compound, and vague as to time. Id. I agree with these objections and, unlike the preceding interrogatory at issue, plaintiff’s motion does nothing to clarify how this interrogatory is relevant or what instance of medicine provision he is inquiring after. I will not compel an additional response. The third interrogatory asks, “[h]ave you been grieved against before besides me? If yes, estimate how many times.” Id. at 7. Defendants objected that the interrogatory was overbroad, irrelevant to the claims at issue, not calculated to lead to discoverable evidence, and not proportional. Id. These objections will be upheld. The total number of grievances filed against all of the named defendants has no obvious relevance to any issue in this case. Conclusion Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 42, and motion for sanctions, ECF No. 43, are 2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 53, is GRANTED in part. Defendants shall answer plaintiff’s interrogatory number four and describe what, if any, mental health training they have undergone. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. 3. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, ECF No. 57, is DENIED. Plaintiff does not request a specific extension and I have not yet taken up plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint, which was filed without first seeking leave to amend. I will discuss the complaint, and any extensions of time it may necessitate, in a separate filing. 1718 SO ORDERED. ( — Dated: _ May 9, 2024 ssn (aise JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE g il