292 F.R.D. 629
E.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiff Wilson Gorrell moved to compel discovery under Rule 37(a) on Feb. 11, 2013.
- Defendants opposed on Feb. 27, arguing improper meet-and-confer and failure to file a joint statement per Local Rule 251(b).
- Court notes Plaintiff is incarcerated but has communicated with defense counsel and joined joint statements in the past.
- Plaintiff did not fully cooperate in preparing a joint discovery statement; future motions without compliance may be dropped.
- The motion addresses production of documents and extensive interrogatories under Rules 26, 33, and 34 and requests for sensitive nonprivileged material.
- Rule 26, 33, and 34 govern the scope of discovery and the obligation to supplement, with requests to compel evaluated for relevance, burden, and potential prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether production of the contract is warranted | Gorrell seeks a copy of the BOP contract | Contract already accessible via BOP; objections to scope | Part grant: compel production of the contract |
| Whether Special Interrogatories Nos. 2–7 require further answers | NTL's responses inadequate; expert input may be necessary | Responses sufficient; some questions premature or speculative | In part granted: Nos. 7 and 18 require further responses; Nos. 2–6 denied or limited |
| Whether Special Interrogatories to Shah require further responses | Shah should answer detailed, including SAMHSA/DHHS alignments | Standards and scope disputed; some questions expert-related | In part granted: Nos. 2 (4–7) require additional responses; Nos. 3 and 4 denied/denied as vague |
| Whether other interrogatories should be compelled as premature or irrelevant | Information bears on testing protocols and potential errors | Requests outside the scope or relevance | In part denied: some interrogatories kept closed; others granted where relevant |
Key Cases Cited
- Roesberg v. Johns-Manville Corp., 85 F.R.D. 292 (D.C. Pa. 1980) (interrogatories may contain conclusions; not improper to include)
- Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Services Co., 253 F.R.D. 354 (D. Md. 2008) (boilerplate objections waiving legitimate ones; need for specific objections)
- Chubb Integrated Sys., Ltd. v. National Bank of Wash., 103 F.R.D. 52 (D.D.C. 1984) (boilerplate objections inadequate; require explanation)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1978) (relevance interpreted broadly to include materials that could lead to admissible evidence)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (defendant bears burden to show why discovery should be denied)