Linennger

(PC) Muhammad v. Linennger

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 16, 20232:20-cv-00070California2,085 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANSAR EL MUHAMMAD, No. 2:20-CV-0070-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MARTIN, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to discovery. See ECF No. 46. In support of Plaintiff’s motion are his additional filings at ECF Nos. 51 and 52. Defendants have filed an opposition and supporting declaration. See ECF Nos. 60 and 61. The purpose of discovery is to "remove surprise from trial preparation so the parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute." United States v. Chapman Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers guidance on the scope of discovery permitted:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.