ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT'S EXPERT WITNESS STUART C. MARSHALL, M.D. [Doc. No. 72.]

KAREN S. CRAWFORD, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Columbus Allen Jr., who is currently incarcerated at the California State Prison in Vacaville, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 [Doc. No. 1], and is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. [Doc. No. 3.] The only remaining defendant in the case is Christopher C. Lai, M.D. [Doc. Nos. 38, 48, 49.] A Motion for Summary Judgment by defendant Lai is currently pending before the District Court. [Doc. No. 68.]

Before the Court are plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendant's Expert Witness Stuart C. Marshall, M.D. [Doc. No. 72]; defendant Dr. Lai's Opposition to plaintiff's Motion [Doc. No. 73]; and defendant Dr. Lai's Supplemental Reply to plaintiff's Motion [Doc. No. 78]. For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court finds that plaintiff's Motion to Compel must be DENIED as moot.

Discussion

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery states that on or about September 26, 2018 defendant Dr. Lai served plaintiff with an expert report prepared by Stuart C. Marshall, M.D. Shortly thereafter, on October 10 or 11, 2018, plaintiff claims he served Dr. Marshall with document requests and requests for admissions. [Doc. No. 72, at p. 2.] By contrast, defendant asserts that plaintiff served counsel for defendant Dr. Lai with his document requests and requests for admissions, and that Dr. Marshall, a non-party, "has never been [properly] served with any of the written discovery at all, despite [the] fact that the discovery was specifically propounded to that witness and not to defendant Dr. Lai." [Doc. No. 73, at pp. 2, 5.] On November 9, 2018, in response to plaintiff's discovery requests, defendant Dr. Lai served plaintiff with objections. [Doc. No. 73, at p. 2.]

In addition to defendant Dr. Lai's claim that Dr. Marshall, as a non-party and an expert, was not properly served with plaintiff's discovery requests as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant Dr. Lai's Opposition raises several other procedural grounds for denying plaintiff's Motion to Compel. [Doc. No. 73, at pp. 3-5.] However, pro se litigants are typically afforded some leniency to compensate for their lack of legal training. "In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears pro se, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt." Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted). This also applies to motions. Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). As a result, the Court requested that defendant Dr. Lai file a supplemental response or opposition addressing the substance of plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery from Dr. Marshall. [Doc. No. 75.]

As the Court requested, defendant Dr. Lai filed a Supplemental Reply to plaintiff's Motion to Compel. [Doc. No. 78.] In this Supplemental Reply, defendant Dr. Lai reiterated his prior objections to plaintiff's discovery requests. [Doc. No. 78, at p. 2.] Despite these objections, defendant Dr. Lai attached verified responses by Dr. Marshall to plaintiff's requests for admissions and document requests. Also attached to Dr. Lai's Supplemental Reply are copies of documents that plaintiff requested in his document requests. [Doc. Nos. 78-1, 78-2.] Defendant Dr. Lai represents that plaintiff has been "separately served" with these documents and Dr. Marshall's verified responses. [Doc. No. 78, at p. 2.]

Dr. Marshall's substantive responses to plaintiff's discovery requests do include some objections that appear to be reasonable. [Doc. No. 78, at p. 2.] Otherwise, based on a brief review by the Court, Dr. Marshall's responses to plaintiff's discovery requests appear to be adequate under the circumstances.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Compel is DENIED as moot. Dr. Marshall recently served plaintiff with responses to his discovery requests. In addition, Dr. Marshall recently served plaintiff with documents that are responsive to his document requests. [Doc. Nos. 78, 78-1, 78-2.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.