Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vartanpour v. Neven

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 11, 2016

RAFIK VARTANPOUR, Plaintiff,
v.
D.W. NEVEN, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge

         Presently before the court is Plaintiff Rafik Vartanpour's Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 37), filed on September 29, 2016. Defendants D.W. Neven, A.W. J. Howell, and Caseworker Calderwood filed a response (ECF No. 42) on October 17, 2016. Plaintiff did not reply.

         Also before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 43), filed on October 31, 2016. Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 46) on November 16, 2016. Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 47) on December 1, 2016.

         Also before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 44), filed on October 31, 2016. Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 45) on November 16, 2016. Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 48) on December 1, 2016.

         Also before the court is Plaintiff's Second Interrogatories (ECF No. 49), filed on December 8, 2016.

         Also before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 50), filed on December 14, 2016. Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 51) on December 23, 2016. Plaintiff did not reply.

         Also before the court is Plaintiff's Request for Instruction for Serving Summons to the Defendants (ECF No. 54), filed on January 17, 2017. Defendants did not respond.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This case arises out of a dispute regarding whether Nevada state prison staff improperly opened Plaintiff's legal mail from the Netherlands Consulate General outside of Plaintiff's presence. The only remaining claim is Plaintiff's legal-mail claim under the First Amendment against Defendants Neven, Howell, Calderwood, Sgt. Joseph, and three John Doe mail room staff.

         The court previously extended the time for serving Sgt. Joseph and the John Doe mail room staff to December 12, 2016. (Order (ECF No. 32) at 4.) The court advised Plaintiff that given his in forma pauperis status, Rule 4(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the court to order that service be made on behalf of the Plaintiff, generally by a United States marshal. (Id.) The court further advised Plaintiff, however, that it is his obligation to provide sufficient information regarding the defendants' identities and locations to allow service of process. (Id.) Plaintiff was ordered to conduct an investigation regarding this information and to file with the court a notice containing sufficient information to allow service of process by October 12, 2016. (Id.) The court stated that upon obtaining the notice from Plaintiff, the court would provide Plaintiff with additional instructions regarding service. (Id.) Plaintiff now files various motions seeking assistance in identifying and serving these defendants.

         II. MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 50)

         Plaintiff moves to compel Defendants' responses to his requests for production of documents and interrogatories that sought the identities of Sgt. Joseph and the John Doe mail room staff, arguing that this information is relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Plaintiff further argues that Defendants' objection stating that his requests were overly broad was improper because he did not request the identities of all prison staff, just the full names of Sgt. Joseph, who is the mail room supervisor, and the three John Doe mail room defendants who were working on particular dates. Plaintiff states that he made a good-faith effort to confer with the Defendants regarding this dispute. (Mot. to Compel (ECF No. 50) at 6.) Plaintiff attaches his requests for production of documents and interrogatories to his motion.

         Defendants respond that Plaintiff's motion does not include the meet-and-confer certification required by Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26- 7(b). Defendants represent that Plaintiff did not attempt to meaningfully discuss the issues with them. Defendants further respond that Plaintiff's motion does not include the full text of the discovery originally sought and responses to the discovery as required by Local Rule 26-7(a). Regardless, Defendants attach their attorney's objections to Plaintiff's requests for production of documents and interrogatories. Finally, Defendants argue the interrogatories were not directed at a specific party as required by Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, therefore making it impossible to answer the interrogatories.

         Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the party to whom interrogatories are directed to answer the interrogatories. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) (stating that a party may serve interrogatories “on any other party”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(1)(A) (stating that interrogatories must be answered “by the party to whom they are directed.”). The party must answer interrogatories, though it is the attorney's responsibility to interpose objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5) (stating that “[t]he person who makes the answers must sign them, and the attorney who objects must sign any objections”); see also Huthnance v. District of Columbia, 255 F.R.D. 297, 300 (D.D.C. 2008) (discussing the common practice of attorneys drafting discovery responses for their clients to review and sign). Likewise, Rule 34 requires that requests for production of documents be directed to a party. See ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.