(PC)Thurman v. Marguina et.al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN EUGENE THURMAN, No. 2:22-CV-0508-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. MARGUINA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion to compel. See 19 ECF No. 38. 20 The purpose of discovery is to "remove surprise from trial preparation so the 21 parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute." United States v. 22 Chapman Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). Rule 23 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers guidance on the scope of discovery 24 permitted:

25 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged information that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of 26 the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, 27 the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 28 outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery 1 need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 3 Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "a party seeking discovery 4 may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection." Fed. R. 5 Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an "evasive or 6 incomplete disclosure, answer, or response." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). "District courts have 'broad 7 discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil 8 Procedure 16.'" Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. 9 Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). 10 Under Rule 37, the party moving to compel bears the burden of informing the 11 court (1) which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, (2) which of the 12 responses are disputed, (3) why the party believes the response is deficient, (4) why any 13 objections are not justified, and (5) why the information sought through discovery is relevant to 14 the prosecution of this action. McCoy v. Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv-1808-MJS (PC), 2016 U.S. Dist. 15 LEXIS 75435, 2016 WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv- 16 5646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24418, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 17 2008). Rule 37 also requires the moving party to meet and confer with the opposing party. See 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). 19 In this case, Defendants served interrogatories, requests for production of 20 documents, and requests for admissions on Plaintiff on April 19, 2023. See ECF No. 38-1 21 (declaration of defense counsel); see also ECF Nos. 38-1 (Exhibit A, interrogatories), 38-2 22 (Exhibit B, requests for production), and 38-3 (Exhibit C, requests for admissions). On June 13, 23 2023, defense counsel took Plaintiff’s deposition at which time counsel offered Plaintiff an 24 additional 45 days to serve discovery responses. See ECF No. 38-1 (declaration of defense 25 counsel); see also ECF No. 38-4 (Exhibit D, transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition). As of the date of 26 filing of Defendants’ motion to compel on October 19, 2023, Plaintiff had not served discovery 27 responses. See ECF No. 38-1 (declaration of defense counsel). 28 / / / ] Given Plaintiffs failure to respond to written discovery within the time permitted, 2 || the Court finds that Defendants have met their burden of demonstrating that an order compelling 3 || Plaintiff to provide responses is warranted. Plaintiff shall be ordered to serve written responses to 4 | Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production, without objection, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 || 33(b)(4) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(C), and to produce responsive documents. The Court will 6 || also order that Defendants’ requests for admissions are deemed admitted, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 | 36(a)(3). 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 9 1. Defendants’ unopposed motion to compel, ECF No. 38, is GRANTED. 10 2. Within 30 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall serve on Defendants 11 || responses to Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production of documents, without 12 || objection, and produce responsive documents. 13 3. Defendants’ requests for admissions are deemed admitted. 14 4. Discovery in this action, other than the discovery ordered herein, is 15 || CLOSED. 16 5. Dispositive motions are due within 90 days of the date of this order. 17 18 | Dated: June 17, 2024 Co 19 DENNIS M. COTA 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28