Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cory James White, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil rights action in the Eastern District of California, served written discovery on Defendants on or about February 19, 2026. It consisted of requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admission. After the court extended Defendants' response deadline to May 25, 2026, it denied White's first motion to compel as premature and noted that Defendants had not waived objections. It later denied a second motion as procedurally deficient because White did not say which requests were at issue. In that ruling it also noted it had no reason to doubt Defendants' assertion that they had responded.
White then filed this third motion on August 11, 2026. He argued that Defendants never responded and had therefore waived their objections. He declared that he had received no discovery from Defendants or their counsel. He also explained that he was transferred from the California Medical Facility to a facility in Orange County in May 2026, and his change-of-address notice, dated May 25, 2026, was filed June 1. Defendants opposed, saying they timely responded and fully complied, but their opposition had no supporting declaration. Defense counsel's earlier declaration said only that responses were timely served, without giving a date. White's addendum also accused the magistrate judge of bias; a separate recusal motion had already been denied.
The Court’s Holding
The court first held the motion procedurally deficient. White did not attach the discovery requests at issue. The court's informational order, its discovery and scheduling order, and Local Rules 250.2(c), 250.3(c), and 250.4(c) contemplate that requests be provided when they are the subject of a dispute. The court cited other Eastern District decisions denying prisoners' motions to compel on that basis.
Despite that defect, the court addressed the central question of whether Defendants actually served responses. It explained that it had earlier reasonably inferred compliance from White's failure to provide the requests and from counsel's declaration. Its review of the record, however, did not reveal the date Defendants' responses were purportedly served or the address used. That gap mattered given White's transfer and the May 25 deadline. The court therefore granted the motion in part.
Within seven days of service of the order, Defendants must file a supplemental pleading. It must include a declaration of defense counsel addressing the service date, copies of the responses, and proofs of service showing the identity and address of the facility used. They must also re-serve the responses on White at his address of record. The court said it will decide after the filing whether further action is necessary. The order does not find that objections were waived, compel any particular substantive response, or impose sanctions. The motion is denied to the extent it seeks anything more.
Key Takeaways
- A motion to compel in this district should attach or identify the specific discovery requests at issue, and a motion that does not is procedurally deficient.
- Counsel's general statement that responses were timely served did not, on this record, show when or where service occurred, so the court asked for dates and proofs of service.
- A party's transfer between facilities during a response period can make the address used for service decisive in a dispute over receipt.
- The order is an interim discovery ruling. It requires a supplemental filing and re-service and reserves further action, so it does not decide whether objections were waived or whether responses were timely.
- The order is unpublished and carries no precedential weight, although it shows how this court handles such a dispute.
Why It Matters
The order shows a court enforcing local filing requirements while still resolving a practical problem for a self-represented prisoner, namely whether he has the responses at all. Rather than choosing between a sworn denial of receipt and counsel's assertion of service, the court required documentary proof and fresh service at the address of record.
It is an unpublished magistrate-judge order in an ongoing case, not a final judgment. What remains open is whether the supplemental filing shows timely and proper service, whether White may then challenge the substance of the responses, and whether any further relief is warranted.