Bharat

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 JAMES BARKACS, Case No. 2:23-cv-1623-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BHARAT RATTAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action alleging that defendants 18 violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide him with adequate medical care. 19 Pending is plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 45, seeking to compel responses to his first set 20 of interrogatories to defendant Perez and his requests for admission to all defendants. Defendants 21 have filed an opposition, ECF No. 47, and plaintiff has filed a reply, 52. Plaintiff’s motion to 22 compel is denied, and his motion for extension of time to amend, ECF No. 49, which is 23 contingent on his motion to compel, is also denied. 24 Motion to Compel

I. Legal Standard

26 Parties are obligated to respond to interrogatories to the fullest extent possible under oath, 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir.…