1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICIA BELLOWS, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00300-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL

13 v. (Doc. 50) 14 K. VANG, et al., January 30, 2026, Deadline 15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Patricia Bellows is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Defendants filed a motion to compel discovery on November 6, 2025, in which they seek 21 Plaintiff’s written responses to the following: Defendant Valerio’s Requests for Production of 22 Documents (Set One) and Interrogatories (Set One and Set Two); Defendant Vogel’s 23 Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One); and Defendant 24 Villalobos’s Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). 25 (Doc. 50.) Defendants’ motion was deemed unopposed following Plaintiff’s failure to timely file 26 an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. (See Docs. 54-56.) 27 // 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Defendants’ Motion to Compel Written Discovery Responses 3 Defendants contend Defendant Valerio served the first set of interrogatories and requests 4 for production of documents on August 13, 2025, making Plaintiff’s responses due by September 5 29, 2025. Plaintiff failed to respond. Defendants Vogel and Villalobos served their first sets of 6 interrogatories and requests for production of documents on September 18, 2025; Defendant 7 Valerio served a second set of interrogatories that same date. Plaintiff’s responses to the three 8 Defendants’ written discovery requests were due November 3, 2025; Plaintiff again failed to 9 respond. 10 Defendants ask the Court to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ outstanding 11 written discovery requests. Defendants contend Plaintiff has neither responded “substantively, or 12 even via objections” and has “waived her right to objecting to any of the written discovery 13 requests” as a result. Defendants maintain the discovery sought “follows up on information asked 14 during [Plaintiff’s deposition], including what grievance Plaintiff claims exhausted her 15 administrative remedies, especially as to Valerio.” Defendants maintain that even if Plaintiff did 16 not provide copies of the “grievances themselves, at minimum, Plaintiff should be required to 17 provide the log number(s) since that may be important information in determining whether 18 Plaintiff exhausted all her claims. 19 Applicable Legal Standards 20 The Court has broad authority to manage its docket and control discovery. See, e.g., 21 Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 22 (9th Cir. 2002) (“broad discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery”). 23 “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s 24 claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the 25 issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant 26 information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 27 whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. 1 A motion to compel is appropriate where a party fails to answer interrogatories pursuant 2 to Rule 33 and/or to produce relevant, non-privileged documents requested pursuant to Rule 34 3 that are in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), 4 (iv). An evasive or incomplete answer or response to a discovery request “must be treated as a 5 failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P 37(a)(4). 6 Analysis 7 Defendants’ motion is supported by the Declaration of Brittany Boiko. (Doc. 50-1.) Ms. 8 Boiko declares that as of November 6, 2025, Defendants have not received Plaintiff’s responses 9 to Valerio’s first set of request for production of documents (Exhibit A) and first set of 10 interrogatories (Exhibit B) served August 13, 2025, or to Vogel’s first sets of interrogatories and 11 requests for production of documents, Villalobos’s first sets of interrogatories and requests for 12 production of documents, and Valerio’s second set of request for production of documents, all 13 served September 18, 2025 (Exhibit C). 14 The Court has reviewed the discovery requests1 and finds all such requests seek relevant 15 information about Plaintiff’s exhaustion of her administrative remedies against Defendants.2 Fed. 16 R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Thus, these requests are within the scope of discovery authorized by Rule 17 26(b), and Plaintiff must respond to them.3 As concern Defendants’ request for production of 18 documents, if Plaintiff does not have documents responsive to any of these requests, or if the 19 documents do not exist, then Plaintiff must specifically state so. In sum, Defendants’ motion to 20 compel will be granted and Plaintiff will be directed to provide written responses to all

21 1 Each request for production of documents is singular and specific; for example: “All documents supporting your claim that you exhausted administrative remedies as to the allegations in this lawsuit against Defendant Valerio 22 (McClain).” (See Doc. 50-1 at 6; see also id. at 25, 28.) The interrogatories are similarly specific. (See Doc. 50-1 at 11, 16, 19, 22.) 23 2 The Court has also reviewed the transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition taken July 22, 2025, and in particular, Plaintiff’s 24 responses to defense counsel’s inquiries regarding Plaintiff’s exhaustion of administrative remedies.

25 3 Plaintiff has waived her right to any objections by her previous failure to respond to written discovery. See, e.g., Cardenas v. Edwards, No. 2:19-CV-0691-TLN-DMC-P, 2021 WL 2142663, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2021) (“the 26 Court has reviewed the written discovery at issue and finds that Defendant’s requests seek relevant information, specifically information related to Plaintiff's exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to filing his lawsuit. 27 Plaintiff's refusal to provide written responses to Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production of documents … violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s scheduling order. Defendants’ motions 1 | outstanding discovery propounded by Defendants. 2 Plaintiff is admonished that this Court may impose sanctions for a failure to cooperate in 3 | discovery.* Further, Plaintiff is reminded that a failure to obey Court orders may result in 4 | dismissal of this action.” Finally, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to issue a new 5 | Discovery and Scheduling Order in this action. 6 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 7 Accordingly, and the reasons given above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 8 1. Defendants’ motion to compel filed November 6, 2025 (Doc. 50) is GRANTED; and 9 2. Plaintiff SHALL respond to the following outstanding written discovery requests no 10 later than Friday, January 30, 2026: 11 a. Defendant Valerio’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and 12 Interrogatories (Set One and Set Two); 13 b. Defendant Vogel’s Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of 14 Documents (Set One); and 15 c. Defendant Villalobos’s Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production 16 of Documents (Set One) 17 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to issue a new scheduling order for this action. 18 Any failure by Plaintiff to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of 19 | sanctions, which may include dismissal of this action. 20 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 71 Dated: _ January 8, 2026 | Word bo 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 | +See also Doc. 45 at 1-2 (“The parties are required to act in good faith during the course of discovery and the failure to do so may result in the payment of expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) or other 27 | appropriate sanctions authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules”). 28 See Doc 5 at 1 (“Failure to so comply will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of the case”’).