Tate

(PC) Womack v. Tate

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 20241:19-cv-00614California3,075 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, Case No.: 1:19-cv-00614-NODJ-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO

13 v. COMPEL RESPONSES TO

INTERROGATORIES

14 H. TATE, et al., (Doc. 78) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Rodney Jerome Womack is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On July 14, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued an Order 21 Granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories. (Doc. 74.) Plaintiff 22 was ordered to provide supplemental responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 23 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 21) and a statement affirming that his previous interrogatory 24 responses, as well as his supplemental responses, were all made under oath, no later than August 25 18, 2023. (Id. at 10.) 26 On September 8, 2023, Judge McAuliffe granted Plaintiff an extension of…

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.