BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Jesse Washington ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case currently proceeds on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to his medical needs against Defendants Rouch and Sisodia. This matter is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion to compel further responses to Defendant Roche's First Set of Interrogatories, Defendant Sisodia's First Set of Interrogatories, and Defendants' First Set of Request for Production of Documents, filed on May 4, 2017. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff filed an opposition with proof of service dated May 21, 2017, which was entered by the Clerk of the Court on June 2, 2017. (ECF No. 28.) Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on June 8, 2017. (ECF No. 29.) Defendants' motion to compel is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(1).
As a threshold issue, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to make a good faith effort to inquire and resolve this discovery concern prior to filing the instant motion to compel, as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (ECF No. 28, at p. 8.) As discussed in the Court's discovery and scheduling order issued on November 21, 2016 in this case, the Court has relieved the parties of the requirement set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37 of a good faith conference or attempt to confer with the other party to resolve a discovery dispute prior to filing a motion to compel. (ECF No. 21, at p. 2 ¶ 4.) Thus, although voluntary compliance with this provision of Rules 26 and 37 is encouraged, and the Court retains the discretion to re-impose a good faith meet and confer requirement, generally no meet and confer is required prior to filing a motion to compel. Also, in this case the Court does not find it necessary to require any meet and confer regarding the subject motion. Thus, the Court will consider the merits of this motion to compel.
Parties are obligated to respond to interrogatories to the fullest extent possible under oath, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4);
On February 15, 2017, Defendants served Plaintiff with Defendant Rouch's First Set of Interrogatories and Defendant Sisodia's First Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiff served responses on March 21, 2017. (ECF No. 28, Exs. 1 & 2.) Defendants now seek to compel further responses to Defendant Rouch's Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, and 14, and Defendant Sisodia's Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, and 11.
Defendants' motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is granted. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a party propounding discovery may seek an order compelling a discovery response when an opposing party has failed to respond or has provided evasive or incomplete responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). "Complete and accurate responses to discovery are required for the proper functioning of our system of justice . . . [and] parties have a duty to provide true, explicit, responsive, complete and candid answers to discovery . . . ."
Here, Plaintiff asserts that the amended complaint contains facts responsive to this interrogatory. Plaintiff also argues that the amended complaint explains his claim in detail, and that he should not have to rewrite the same facts in response to the interrogatories.
Defendants argue that it is not clear whether the amended complaint contains all supporting facts regarding the complaint allegations, as requested in the interrogatory. Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff's opposition is not clear on the completeness of his response, although he does state that he has no other documents or names of anyone that can testify to the facts of his claim.
Accordingly, Plaintiff must supplement this response with any additional facts that support his contention, or must confirm in writing to Defendants that there are no additional facts, to his knowledge.
Defendants' motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is granted, for the same reasons stated above regarding Defendant Roche's Interrogatory No. 7. Plaintiff must supplement this response with any additional facts that support his contention, or must confirm in writing that there are no additional facts, to his knowledge.
Defendants' motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is granted. Plaintiff argues that defense counsel has been authorized to review all of his medical files, and Defendants have a copy of the amended complaint, which both contain information about his injuries. A party may respond to an interrogatory by producing documents containing information responsive to the request. However, as explained above, Defendant Rouch is entitled to a complete response to the interrogatory. It is not clear whether Plaintiff has any additional facts to provide here other than what is in the documents.
Further, Defendants object to broad responses that do not specifically identify what documents that Plaintiff believes describe the medical care he received as a result of Defendant Rouch's actions, as requested in this interrogatory. Defendants further object that for Plaintiff to identify several years of medical records without any direction as to which documents are responsive to this particular interrogatory is unduly burdensome and non-responsive, because it requires them to determine what records that Plaintiff is relying upon.
Defendants' objections are sustained. A party is entitled to individualized, complete responses to each discovery request, and generalized responses that do not specifically indicate whether all responsive documents to a particular discovery request have been produced are insufficient.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement his response by identifying which documents from his prison medical file specifically respond to this interrogatory. Plaintiff must also provide any additional responsive facts not found in the documents he references, or confirm in writing that there are no additional facts, to his knowledge.
Defendants' motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is denied. Contrary to Defendants' contention, Plaintiff did not merely reference the amended complaint here, but gave a factual response. Plaintiff contends that he gave his non-medical opinion here, identifying his serious medical conditions as requested, in layman's terms and to the best of his abilities. Defendants have not shown that this interrogatory response is insufficient or incomplete.
Defendants' motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is granted. As discussed above, Plaintiff must supplement this reference to his amended complaint with any additional facts that support his contention, or confirm in writing that there are no additional facts, to his knowledge.
Defendants' motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is granted. As discussed above, Plaintiff must supplement this reference to his amended complaint with any additional facts that support his contention, or confirm in writing that there are no additional facts, to his knowledge.
Defendants' motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is granted. For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff must supplement this reference to his amended complaint with any additional facts that support his contention, or confirm in writing that there are no additional facts, to his knowledge.
Defendants' motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is granted. As discussed above, Plaintiff may reference such documents, but must supplement the reference with any additional facts that support his contention, or confirm whether there are no additional facts, to his knowledge. Also, Plaintiff must supplement his response by identifying which documents from his prison medical file specifically respond to this interrogatory.
A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party's possession, custody or control: any designated documents or tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).
On February 15, 2017, Defendants served Plaintiff with Defendants' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff served responses on March 21, 2017. (ECF No. 28, Ex. 3.) Defendants now seek to compel further responses to Defendants' Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1-7.
Defendants' motion to compel a further response to POD 1 is denied. Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to indicate which documents he produced correspond to which Defendant and which claim. However, Defendants' broad request does not require Plaintiff to separate the documents by Defendant or claim. Defendants have not shown that Plaintiff's response is insufficient or improper here.
Defendants' motion to compel a further response to POD 2 is granted. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's response citing six years of medical records does not respond to their request for distinct information about the medical care received for the conditions alleged in his amended complaint.
As discussed above, Defendants are entitled to an individualized response that indicates which responsive documents are produced in response to this specific request.
Defendants' motion to compel a further response to POD 3 is granted, for the same reasons discussed above regarding POD 2. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement his response by identifying which documents specifically respond to this request.
Defendants' motion to compel a further response to POD 4 is granted, for the same reasons discussed above regarding POD 2. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement his response by identifying which documents specifically respond to this request.
Defendants' motion to compel a further response to POD 5 is granted, for the same reasons discussed above regarding POD 2. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement his response by identifying which documents specifically respond to this request.
Defendants' motion to compel a further response to POD 6 is granted, for the same reasons discussed above regarding POD 2. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement his response by identifying which documents specifically respond to this request.
Defendants' motion to compel a further response to
On September 7, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, requesting an extension of the dispositive motion deadline from when the Court rules on their motion to compel. (ECF No. 30.) Defense counsel declares in support that the extension is necessary to allow Defendants to receive, review and evaluate Plaintiff's supplemental responses. Defendants seek an extension of sixty days.
Good cause being shown, Defendants' motion is granted, and the deadline for filing dispositive motions shall be extended until December 15, 2017.
For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants' motion to compel discovery responses is granted in part and denied in part as detailed above;
2. Within
3. Defendants' motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order is granted;
4. The deadline for filing all dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust) is extended to
5. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, Defendants are not precluded from seeking appropriate sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
