(PC)Marion II v. Oregel 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CARL BENTLY MARION II,
Plaintiff,
v.
EDGAR OREGEL, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 1:24-cv-00872-KES-EGC (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL
(Doc. 41)
Plaintiff Carl Bently Marion II is represented by counsel in this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Merritt.
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 11, 2026, Defendant filed a motion to compel discovery. (Doc. 41.)
Plaintiff did not file an opposition or otherwise respond to the motion within 21 days as required
by this Court’s Local Rule 230(l).
On October 6, 2026, Defendant filed “Defendant’s Notice of Non-Opposition,” noting
Plaintiff has failed to respond to the pending motion to compel and requesting “that the Court
consider the motion submitted.” (Doc. 46.)
The Court will grant Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel discovery responses.
Case 1:24-cv-00872-KES-EGC Document 47 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 4

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
II. DISCUSSION
A. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery
Briefly stated, on June 16, 2026, Defendant served interrogatories to Plaintiff. (Doc. 41 at
3.) Responses were due on or before August 3, 2026. (Id.) Defense counsel emailed counsel for
Plaintiff on July 20, 2026, inquiring whether Plaintiff intended to serve responses to the
interrogatories. (Id.) Counsel for Plaintiff replied that he had mailed the interrogatories to Plaintiff
and was awaiting his response. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to defense counsel’s
follow up inquiry “asking for a time estimate.” (Id.) On July 24, 2026, defense counsel inquired
whether Plaintiff required an extension of time to respond; counsel received no response. (Id. at
3-4.) On August 5, 2026, after the response deadline had expired, defense counsel emailed
Plaintiff’s counsel to inquire about the status of Plaintiff’s discovery responses. (Id. at 4.) Counsel
for Plaintiff did not respond. (Id.) On August 13, 2026, defense counsel sent a meet and confer
letter to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id.) Finally, Defendant contends that as of September 11, 2026,
Plaintiff had failed to respond to the interrogatories. (Id.)
B. Applicable Legal Standards
The Court has broad authority to manage its docket and control discovery. See, e.g., Landis
v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)
(“broad discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery”).
A motion to compel is appropriate where a party fails to answer interrogatories pursuant to
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or to produce relevant, non-privileged documents
requested pursuant to Rule 34 that are in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv). If a party fails to respond to a discovery request, the
discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer and/or production. Id. An evasive
or incomplete answer or response to a discovery request “must be treated as a failure to disclose,
answer or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P 37(a)(4).
C. Analysis
Here, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant Merritt’s First Set of Interrogatories
served June 16, 2026. Plaintiff’s responses were due on or before August 3, 2026 (see Doc. 40 at
Case 1:24-cv-00872-KES-EGC Document 47 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 4

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
1 [“Responses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five (45) days after the request is
first served”]), and as of September 11, 2026, when Defendant’s motion was filed with the Court,
Plaintiff had still not responded. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to file a timely opposition or
statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion. See Local Rule 230(l). Thus, the Court
considers the motion unopposed.
The Court has reviewed Defendant’s discovery request (see Doc. 41-1 at 5-9) and finds
that it seeks relevant information concerning Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Thus,
these requests are within the scope of discovery authorized by Rule 26(b), and Plaintiff must
respond to them.
Plaintiff will be ordered to respond to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories within 14
days. Plaintiff is admonished that this Court may impose sanctions for a failure to cooperate in
discovery.1 Further, Plaintiff is reminded that a failure to obey Court orders may result in
dismissal of this action.2 Lastly, Defendant will be directed to file a status report within 21 days.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:
1. Defendant Merritt’s motion to compel (Doc. 41) is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff SHALL respond to Defendant Merrit’s First Set of Interrogatories no later
than 14 days from the date of service of this order; and
//
//
//
//
//
1 See Doc. 40 at 1-2 (“The parties are required to act in good faith during the course of discovery and the failure to do
so may result in the payment of expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) or other appropriate
sanctions authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules”).
2 See Doc. 7 at 1 (“Failure to so comply will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of
the case”).
Case 1:24-cv-00872-KES-EGC Document 47 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 4

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
3. Defendant is DIRECTED to file a status report no later than 21 days from the date
of this order, advising the Court as to whether (1) Plaintiff has served responses to the
outstanding discovery and (2) if issuance of a scheduling order is appropriate given the
status of the anticipated responses.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2026
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00872-KES-EGC Document 47 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 4