Wilkins v. Alameda County Sheriff's Office et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01706

ORDER by Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying {{55}} Motion to Compel; denying {{57}} Motion to Compel.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 RUDY WILKINS, 8 Case No. 15-cv-01706-YGR (NJV) Plaintiff, 9 ORDER RE DISCOVERY MOTIONS v. 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 55, 57 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S 11 OFFICE, et al., 12 Defendants. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 This is a prisoner civil rights action brought pro se by inmate Rudy Wilkens. District Judge 15 Gonzalez Rogers has referred Plaintiff's pending discovery motions to the undersigned. For the 16 reasons explained below, the court will deny Plaintiff's motions filed October 14, 2016 and 17 October 27, 2016. 18 During August 2016, Plaintiff directed interrogatories and requests for production to 19 Defendants Dr. Maria Magat, Dr. Ifei Chen, Dr. Tha Khin, and Dr. Glenda Newell. (Doc. 55, at 20 2:9-11; Doc. 57, at 2:7-9.) Defendants responded to the interrogatories on September 14 and 21 responded to the requests for production on September 29. (Doc. 55, at 4-31.) 22 In a letter dated September 27, Plaintiff demanded further interrogatory responses, 23 asserting Defendants "[did] not answer any of the interrogatories' subparts." (Doc. 55, at 33. 24 When defense counsel received the letter dated September 27, she responded on 25 October 6 that Plaintiff's letter was unintelligible because the interrogatories contained no 26 "subparts." She asked Plaintiff to clarify and to identify the interrogatory responses at issue. (Doc. 27 59, Grigg Decl., ¶4 & Exh. B.) Plaintiff never did so. 28 Around October 7, Plaintiff sent Defense Counsel another letter demanding further 1 interrogatory answers. (Doc. 58, Grigg Decl., ¶4 & Exh. B.) In it, he did not identify the 2 interrogatories he contended required further response. Id. He also did not explain why further 3 response to any interrogatory was warranted – except to again insist Defendants had not answered 4 unspecified interrogatory "subparts." 5 On October 14, Plaintiff moved to compel further interrogatory responses, without 6 responding to defense counsel's October 6 letter. (Doc. 55.) On October 27, Plaintiff moved to 7 compel production of documents and request for admissions. (Doc. 57.) He did not attempt to 8 confer about the issues raised therein before filing it. (Doc. 58, Grigg Decl., ¶7.) On October 28, 9 2016, Defendants filed a response to both of Plaintiff's motions to compel. (Doc. 58.) Plaintiff 10 filed a reply in the form of a Brief in Support of Motion to Compel on November 14, 2016. (Doc. 11 62.) 12 The Civil Local Rules for the United States District Court for Northern District of Northern District of California United States District Court 13 California provide in part as follows: 14 37-2. Form of Motions to Compel In addition to complying with applicable provisions of Civil L.R. 7, a motion to compel 15 further responses to discovery requests must set forth each request in full, followed 16 immediately by the objections and/or responses thereto. For each such request, the moving papers must detail the basis for the party's contention that it is entitled to the requested 17 discovery and must show how the proportionality and other requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) are satisfied. 18 Attached to Plaintiff's October 14th motion to compel further interrogatory responses are 19 20 copies of the interrogatory responses of Drs. Magat, Chen and Newell. (Doc. 55.) Plaintiff, 21 however, does not "detail the basis for [his] contention that [he] is entitled to the requested 22 discovery." Although Plaintiff complains that he did not receive interrogatory answers from Dr. 23 Khin, Dr. Khin was not yet served and is thus was not a party to this action. While Plaintiff argues 24 generally that the answers that Defendants provided were evasive and incomplete, this is 25 insufficient to support a motion to compel under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil 26 Local Rule 37-2. 27 28 Attached to Plaintiff's October 27th motion to compel production of documents and 2 request for admissions are copies of the responses by Drs. Magat, Chen, and Newell. (Doc. 57, 1 2 Attachments.) Plaintiff presents no argument as to why he is entitled to the requested discovery. 3 He argues only that "Defendants' responses are "evasive work product conjuration, sleight of hand 4 from the Attorneys period." Again, this is insufficient to support a motion to compel under the 5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil Local Rule 37-2. 6 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motions filed October 14, 2017, and October 27, 2017, are 7 HEREBY DENIED. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: June 15, 2017 11 ______________________________________ NANDOR J. VADAS 12 United States Magistrate Judge Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3