(PC) Williams v. Beer et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN W. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BEER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG (PC)
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND
DENYING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
(ECF No. 146)
Plaintiff John Williams is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants Beer, Oaks, Pascoe,
Riddle, and Garcia to provide further responses to certain interrogatories that Plaintiff has
propounded on them. (ECF No. 146).
For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to compel, in part,
and deny it, in part.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his complaint on February 8, 2021. (ECF No. 1). Defendants Oaks, Pascoe,
and Riddle, Beer, and Garcia are correctional officers, and Defendant Cubos is a registered nurse
who recorded Plaintiff’s injuries. (ECF Nos. 1, 10, 12). This action stems from Plaintiff’s
allegations that, on August 5, 2019, Defendant Oaks stabbed him in the buttocks with a metal
pencil-like handcuff key, repeatedly kicked him, and pepper sprayed him, while Defendant
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 162 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Pascoe stood outside the van’s side door and watched. (ECF Nos. 1, 10, 12, 25). Plaintiff also
alleges that, after he was subjected to the excessive use of force, he suffered from bleeding
buttocks, pain to groin, pain to lower torso, pain to face, pain to legs, burning of skin, burning of
eyes, and burning lungs, and that while Defendants Oaks, Pascoe, Riddle, Beer, Garcia, and
Cubos were aware of some, if not all, of his injuries, none of them provided or summoned
medical care for those injuries. (Id.)
After screening, Plaintiff elected to proceed on his Eighth Amendment excessive force
claim against Defendant Oaks; his Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant
Pascoe; his Eighth Amendment sexual assault claim against defendant Oaks; and his Eighth
Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against defendants
Oaks, Pascoe, Riddle, Beer, Garcia, and Cubos. (ECF Nos. 11, 12, 25).
On December 9, 2025, Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his complaint. (ECF No. 148). Among
other things, Defendants argue that one of Plaintiff’s grievances “was not exhausted through the
third and final level of review until December 2, 2021— nearly a year after Plaintiff filed the
operative complaint in this case.” (ECF No. 148-1, p. 12). Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment on December 29, 2025, arguing, among other things, that Defendants
failed to properly process his grievance, and thus his claims should be deemed exhausted. (ECF
No. 155, pp. 2, 6-7). Defendants have yet to file a reply in support of their motion for summary
judgment.1
Citing their motion for summary judgment, Defendants moved to stay discovery until it
was decided. (ECF No. 152). The Court denied that motion on January 7, 2026. (ECF No. 159).
II. MOTION TO COMPEL
On December 3, 2025, Plaintiff moved to compel Defendants Beer, Oaks, Pascoe, Riddle,
and Garcia to provide further responses to certain interrogatories. (ECF No. 146). Specifically, he
asks the Court to compel further responses to the following interrogatories:
• Beer – Interrogatories 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
• Oaks – Interrogatories 2, 4, 7, 8
1 The Court recognizes that Defendants’ deadline to file a reply is January 30, 2026. (ECF No. 160).
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 162 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
• Pascoe – Interrogatories 2, 3, 7, 8
• Riddle – Interrogatories 9, 10
• Garcia – Interrogatory 4
(Id. at 2).
Generally, Plaintiff argues that Defendants provided evasive or incorrect answers to each
of the above interrogatories and he asks the Court to compel them to provide complete answers.
Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s motion on December 22, 2025. (ECF No. 153). Citing
their then pending motion to stay discovery, they argue that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied
because their pending motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion will moot the
need for additional discovery. (Id. at 1-2). The Court notes that this opposition was filed before
the Court issued its order on January 7, 2026, denying Defendants’ motion to stay discovery.
(ECF No. 159, see ECF No. 152).
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
Interrogatories are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, and [a]n interrogatory
may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(b).
In turn, Rule 26(b)(1) provides as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within
this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party seeking discovery may
move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection,” including if “a
party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii).
The Court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or incomplete disclosure,
answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 162 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Lastly, the Court notes that it has broad discretion to manage discovery. Hunt v. County of
Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir.2012) (noting district courts broad discretion in managing
discovery and controlling the course of litigation).
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Challenged Interrogatories
Plaintiff challenges Defendants’ responses to the following interrogatories:2
BEER
Interrogatory 1
State all facts or reasons why it was necessary that you instruct “both
officers to assist Williams out of the Transportation van so he could receive
further decontamination and be medically evaluated” on August 5, 2019,
out front of correctional treatment center (CTC) at California State Prison
Corcoran (CSPC).
Answer
Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it is standard
practice within the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation for two officers to escort an inmate. In addition, Plaintiff
posed a greater than normal threat to the safety of staff and the security of
the institution because he had assaulted Officer Oaks just prior to
Plaintiff’s return to California State Prison-Corcoran.
Interrogatory 4
When your initial crime/Incident Report (CIR) log# COR-HCO-19-08-
0872, attached at Exhibit ‘A’ hereto, was sent back for clarification to ask
“did you or any other person offer inmate Williams a change of clothing,”
why didn’t your response thereto, ever appear in initial CIR authored by
you or your subordinates Defendant’s Garcia And Riddle.
Answer
Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant states that the offer of the
change of clothes was not a significant detail and therefore was not
included in his report prepared on August 5, 2019, however, Defendant
reported the offer of a change clothes in his response to the request for
clarification prepared on August 8, 2019.
Interrogatory 5
State all facts and/or reason why you did not ensure that the inside of the
transit[-]van where plaintiff was exposed to Defendant Oaks chemical
2 For conciseness, the Court has included only the relevant objections to the interrogatories. Additionally,
for readability, the Court has made minor alterations to quotations from Plaintiff’s motion to compel
without indicating each change.
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 162 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
agent on August 5, 2019, was decontaminated prior to Plaintiff’s transport
from CSPC back to California Medical Facility on August 5, 2019.
Answer
Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that he does not
believe Plaintiff was transported to California Medical Facility in a van that
was contaminated with pepper spray.
Interrogatory 6
Initially, CMF officials received information from CSPC officials that on
August 5, 2019, Plaintiff “kicked the vehicle’s door out toward the officer
striking him in the upper torso, see Administrative Segregation Unit
Placement notice at Exhibit ‘B’ hereto, however, by the time warden Ken
Clark signed off on the CIR on August 12, 2019, and Plaintiff was issued
the initial rules violation report (RVR) on August 22, 2019, CSPC officials
alleged that “Williams quickly kicked the door of the holding cell causing
the door to swing outward towards Officer Oaks. The holding cell door
struck Officer Oaks in the left shin, “at what stage of this process was it
decided to change, or alter, “struck in the upper torso” to “struck in the left
shin,” and who made the decision.
Answer
Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant states the Administrative
Segregation Unit Placement notice and the Rules Violation Report were
not prepared by him. He does not know why the Administrative
Segregation Unit Placement notice, signed by J. Appleberry, states the
officer was struck in the upper torso. However, the Rules Violation Report,
prepared by Officer Oaks, appears to correctly state that Plaintiff “kicked
the door causing it to swing out striking [Officer Oaks’] lower left leg.”
Interrogatory 7
What was the legal requirement for CSPC processing the two citizen’s
complaint against employee of CDCR on Form-2142 attached at Exhibit
‘C’ hereto, in September 2019.
Answer
Subject to the foregoing objections, to extent Plaintiff is seeking policies
related to citizen’s complaints, policies can be found at California Code of
Regulations, title 15, section 3391 (2019) and the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Operations Manual section 31140.12
(2019).
Interrogatory 8
Please explain, and state all knowledge you have as to, why, subsequent
notice of pending charges sent to records by Officer A. Barela on August 7,
2019, in RVR log# 000000006886118, the RVR process was held
postponed for about 11-13 days, under elapsed days.
Answer
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 162 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant states he was not involved
with the hearing of the referenced RVR and has no knowledge concerning
postponement of the “RVR process” for RVR # 000000006886118.
Interrogatory 9
At any stage of investigations into the events giving rise to this lawsuit was
camera footage from the Kings County Superior Court parking lot where
transit[-]van # 266 was parked on August 5, 2019, ever reviewed or
secured as part of any investigation.
Objection
This interrogatory [is] overly burdensome and an abuse of the discovery
process. Assuming such footage ever existed, Plaintiff had equal access to
request video footage via his defense attorney in the related criminal
matter.
OAKS
Interrogatory 2
If it is true that your initiated securing of the holding cage door inside the
rear of the transit van #266 on August 5, 2019, commence from the right
side from where you were standing then to your left, then please discribe
(sic) how plaintiff’s “sudden kick of the holing cage door”, caused the
holing cage door “to swing out striking my lower left leg” and the injury
you reported in your CIR.
Answer
Defendant believes that Plaintiff used his feet to suddenly kick the metal
door of the holding cell, causing it to swing out and strike Defendant's
lower left leg.
Interrogatory 4
Considering the length of the holding cage door that you claim swung
outward to cause the abrasions and active bleeding noted on the CDCR -
7219 of you attached at Exhibit “B” herein, how did the holding cage door
itself fit past your booted foot to reach contact with your left leg while
swinging out.
Answer
The door of the rear holding cell is shaped as seen in photographs, which
have been shown to Plaintiff, allowing the door to forcefully strike
Defendant’s leg, causing the injuries described in the CDCR Form 7219.
Interrogatory 7
Please give a detailed discription (sic) of the leg maneuver or method you
say plaintiff carried out with the HRE restraints that allowed plaintiff to
kick the door with the force to swing out and cause the two separate
abrasions and active bleeding injuries noted on your CDCR - 7219, at
Exhibit “B” hereto.
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 162 Filed 01/23/26 Page 6 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Answer
Defendant believes that Plaintiff forcefully kicked the door of the holding
cell with his feet. Plaintiff’s restraints allowed him to move, including
walking, sitting, standing, stepping, turning around, and moving otherwise,
and the restraints would not have and did not prevent him from being able
to move his legs to kick the door of the holding cell.
Interrogatory 8
Please explain and provide all knowledge you have as to why the two
citizen’s complaint on CDCR - 2142 form filed by Flora Lee against you
with office of Internal Affairs (OIA) in September 21019, were forwarded
to plaintiff at California Health Care Facility (CHCF) in conjunction with
correspondence from T. Duan-Associate Warden (AW) Central Operations,
California State Prison Corcoran (CSPC), attached at Exhibit “C” herein.
Answer
Defendant does not have any personal knowledge in response to this
request, but it appears from the letter attached to Plaintiff’s interrogatories
that T. Dunn was responding to “the letter(s) and attachments” Plaintiff
“sent to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) Office of Internal Affairs (OIA).”
PASCO
Interrogatory 2
Considering that defendant Oaks was securing the cell door from his right
to lock at the left state all facts which would help clarify, or explain, how
“Williams kick the cell door” could cause the cell door “to swing out
striking Oaks” as you wrote in your CIR.
Answer
The door of the holding cell was not yet secured when Plaintiff kicked the
door, causing it to swing out and strike and injure Officer Oaks.
Interrogatory 3
Please provide a clear description of the process required when securing
the holding cage door at the rear of the transit van #266 referenced in your
CIR.
Answer
She did not reference a “process” for securing the door of the holding cell
in her report. In her report, Defendant stated that Officer Oaks “followed
[plaintiff] up into the van to secure the door of the holding cell.” Before
Officer Oaks could secure the door, however, Plaintiff kicked the door of
the holding cell, causing it to swing out and strike and injure Officer Oaks.
Interrogatory 7
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 162 Filed 01/23/26 Page 7 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Why did California State Prison Corcoran (CSPC) officers, including you,
demonstrate a “lack of response via the investigative employee process” as
determined by the Senior Hearing Officer (SHO) in the “comment” section
of RVR log #6886118 attached at Exhibit “B” hereto.
Answer
Defendant does not have any personal knowledge regarding the reasoning
for the Senior Hearing Officer’s comment. Defendant was not involved in
the investigation or adjudication of the RVR referenced. In connection with
responding to these interrogatories, Defendant learned that an email was
sent to her on September 27, 2019, regarding RVR No. 6886118, which
Defendant does not recall receiving. Defendant was assigned to
transportation in September 2019.
Interrogatory 8
Did CSPC ever make a request to Kings County Superior Court sheriff
deputies to obtain or review video footage from the courthouse parking lot
security cameras where the incident described in your CIR occurred on
August 5, 2019, as part of CSPC investigation or inquiry into this event.
Answer
Defendant does not know whether “CSPC” (presumably California State
Prison-Corcoran) made a request to Kings County Superior Court sheriff
deputies concerning existence of any video footage “from the courthouse
parking lot security cameras where the incident described in your CIR
occurred on August 5, 2019.” Defendant is informed and believes that an
investigator from the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s Office of Internal Affairs contacted Kings County
Superior Court and was advised by Kings County Superior Court that
footage is saved for only fourteen days
RIDDLE
Interrogatory 9
In your CIR you go on to record that “officer Garcia and I placed inmate
Williams back to the van and secured Williams in the van without further
incident,” please explain why you would secure plaintiff, or any inmate
under your custody and care, in an area contaminated with a chemical
agent without first decontaminating the area.
Answer
Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant states he did not “secure
plaintiff in an area contaminated with a chemical agent.” Defendant does
not recall any scent or odor of pepper spray and the type of pepper spray
used in transportation is a foam that does not emit fumes or odors.
Interrogatory 10
After you secured plaintiff back inside Transit[-]van #266, following
completion of the medical evaluation by defendant Cubos was plaintiff still
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 162 Filed 01/23/26 Page 8 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
showing signs of being effected from exposure to a chemical agent on
August 5, 2019, at CSPC.
Answer
Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant states he is not sure Plaintiff
was placed back in van number 266 after the medical evaluation and does
not recall Plaintiff complaining of exposure to pepper spray, coughing or
otherwise showing signs that he was experiencing effects of exposure to
pepper spray.
GARCIA
Interrogatory 4
When you report in your crime incident report (CIR) at exhibit 4 ‘A’ herein
that you and defendant Riddle “escorted Williams to housing unit “C” for
decontamination.” And Williams was placed in the shower,” please explain
the process of placing plaintiff in the shower and any security methods that
came with the placement.
Answer
Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant states he is unsure what
Plaintiff means by the “process” of placing him the shower. Plaintiff was
escorted to housing unit “C” for decontamination and was placed in the
shower and the water was started, but Plaintiff refused decontamination,
stating “I don’t want to get wet.” In addition, it was not necessary to
remove Plaintiff’s restraints for him to decontaminate. Plaintiff had just
assaulted an officer and removing Plaintiff’s restraints when it was not
necessary for him to decontaminate would have created an unnecessary
risk to the safety of Defendant, other officers, staff and other inmates.
(ECF No. 146, pp. 17-61).
B. Discussion
Upon consideration, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to most of
the interrogatories because it finds that Defendants’ answers are not evasive or otherwise
incomplete. However, the Court will compel Defendant Beer to provide a further response to
Interrogatory 9.
With the exception of Interrogatory Number 9, the Court concludes that Defendants
provided legally adequate responses. For example, as to Interrogatory 1 propounded to Beer
regarding Beer directing two officers to assist Plaintiff out of the transit van, Plaintiff argues that
Beer failed to “provide a direct answer” and “offer[ed] an evasive response which . . . alters from
this specific discovery request.” (ECF No. 146, pp. 5-6). The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s
challenge to this Interrogatory.
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 162 Filed 01/23/26 Page 9 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Interrogatory 1 asked Beer why Beer instructed “both officers to assist Williams out of the
Transportation van so he could receive further decontamination and be medically evaluated on
August 5, 2019.” (Id. at 18) (internal quotation marks omitted). Beer provided a straightforward
answer, “that it is standard practice within the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation for two officers to escort an inmate” and “Plaintiff posed a greater than normal
threat to the safety of staff and the security of the institution because he had assaulted Officer
Oaks just prior to Plaintiff’s return to California State Prison-Corcoran.” (Id.).
While Plaintiff asserts that this answer was incorrect—stating that Beer should have
“concede[d] to the fact that defendant instructed subordinates to assist due to Plaintiff’s exposure
to a chemical agent”—Plaintiff’s disagreement with Beer’s explanation does not mean that Beer
evaded the question. (Id. at 6); see Hardy v. Davis, No. 2:13-CV-0726 JAM DB, 2017 WL
445723, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2017) (“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a party
propounding discovery may seek an order compelling a discovery response when an opposing
party has failed to respond or has provided evasive or incomplete responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a).
A mere disagreement with the responding party’s responses is not a basis for objection.”).
For another example, as to Interrogatory 7 propounded to Oaks regarding Plaintiff kicking
a door, Plaintiff argues that Oaks is making the “false and bogus conclusionary claim” that
Plaintiff “kicked [a] door,” which struck Oaks. (ECF No. 146, p. 10). The Court disagrees with
Plaintiff’s challenge to this Interrogatory.
Interrogatory 7 asked Oaks to “give a detailed discription (sic) of the leg maneuver or
method you say plaintiff carried out with the HRE restraints that allowed plaintiff to kick the door
with the force to swing out and cause the two separate abrasions and active bleeding injuries.”
(Id. at 32). Oaks responded “that Plaintiff forcefully kicked the door of the holding cell with his
feet. Plaintiff’s restraints allowed him to move, including walking, sitting, standing, stepping,
turning around, and moving otherwise, and the restraints would not have and did not prevent him
from being able to move his legs to kick the door of the holding cell.” (Id.).
While Plaintiff states that Oaks’s “description of the circumstances that caused the two
abrasions is illogical,” Plaintiff’s disagreement with Oaks’s answer does not mean that the Court
must order a further response as Plaintiff requests. (Id. at 10). See Edwards v. Magallanes, No.
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 162 Filed 01/23/26 Page 10 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
1:16-CV-00975-SAB (PC), 2018 WL 3629924, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2018) (“Plaintiff simply
does not like Grajeda’s responses and merely contends different ways in which she could have
answered the interrogatories or allegedly refreshed her recollection of events. However, Plaintiff’
mere disagreement with the responses is insufficient.”).
For another example, as to Interrogatory 10 propounded to Riddle regarding Plaintiff’s
exposure to a chemical agent, Plaintiff argues that Riddle’s “response is a plea of ignorance
coupled by selective memory.” (ECF No. 146, p. 14). The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s
challenge to this Interrogatory.
Interrogatory 10 asked Riddle, “After you secured plaintiff back inside Transit[-]van
#266, following completion of the medical evaluation by defendant Cubos was plaintiff still
showing signs of being effected from exposure to a chemical agent on August 5, 2019, at CSPC.”
(Id. at 52). Riddle answered states that “he is not sure Plaintiff was placed back in van number
266 after the medical evaluation and does not recall Plaintiff complaining of exposure to pepper
spray, coughing or otherwise showing signs that he was experiencing effects of exposure to
pepper spray.” (Id. at 52-53).
While Plaintiff argues that Riddle’s response lacks “the diligence required when
responding to interrogatories,” the Court cannot compel Riddle to answer information that he has
affirmatively stated that he does not recall. (Id. at 14); see Heilman v. Lyons, No. 2:09-CV-2721
KJN P, 2011 WL 2415032, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2011) (“[D]efendant Echeverria is not
required to provide answers he cannot recall or does not know.”).
In addition to the examples discussed above, the Court has reviewed Defendants’ other
responses to the interrogatories—and Plaintiff’s arguments why further responses should be
compelled—and concludes that Plaintiff’s arguments are meritless, except as to one interrogatory.
Specifically, as to Interrogatory 9, Plaintiff asked Beer, “At any stage of investigations
into the events giving rise to this lawsuit was camera footage from the Kings County Superior
Court parking lot where transit[-]van # 266 was parked on August 5, 2019, ever reviewed or
secured as part of any investigation.” (ECF No. 146, p. 23). Rather than answer this Interrogatory,
Beer objected that “[t]his interrogatory [is] overly burdensome and an abuse of the discovery
process. Assuming such footage ever existed, Plaintiff had equal access to request video footage
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 162 Filed 01/23/26 Page 11 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
via his defense attorney in the related criminal matter.” (Id.). Plaintiff argues that Beer improperly
“ignore[ed]” this Interrogatory. (Id. at 9). The Court agrees.
Beer provides no argument as to why answering a simple question about the reviewing or
securing of camera footage as part of an investigation is “overly burdensome,” or “an abuse of the
discovery process” nor would it appear to be so. Further, whether Plaintiff had equal access to the
footage is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s question about whether the footage was reviewed or secured as
part of any investigation.
Accordingly, the Court will require Beer to provide a full response to Interrogatory 9.
V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted, in part, and denied, in part. (ECF No. 146).
2. Within 45 days from the entry of this order, March 9, 2026, Beer shall fully
respond to Interrogatory 9.
3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to all other interrogatories is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2026 /s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 162 Filed 01/23/26 Page 12 of 12