Dike
(PC) Kindred v. Dike
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED, Case No.: 1:19-cv-00955-AWI-JLT (PC)
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING
v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER
A. DIKE, (Docs. 42-45) Defendant.
16 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to his discovery requests1 and Defendant’s motion for a protective order.2 (Docs. 42-44.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies both motions. I. LEGAL STANDARDS Parties may seek “discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Within this general scope, a party may serve on any other party an interrogatory, a request to admit the truth of a matter, or a request to produce documents, electronically stored information,
1 Plaintiff filed two identical motions to compel. (Compare Doc. 42 with Doc. 44.) It appears that…