*1 On April 9, 2013, Plaintiff Jose Ventura Juarez, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant Ramon Delgado, a licensed vocational nurse at Ironwood State Prison. (Docket Entry No. 12.) The FAC asserts individual-capacity claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). (Id.) Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendant was working the “pill window” at the prison on December 29, 2010, and accused Plaintiff of “cheeking” his medication. (FAC ¶¶ 8–12.) About a week later, according to Plaintiff, Defendant ripped up a renewed prescription for Plaintiff's pain medication and refused to give him his medication. (Id.)

Defendant answered the FAC on May 15, 2014. (Docket Entry No. 46.) On the same date, the Court issued an Order Regarding Scheduling in Civil Rights Cases (“Discovery Scheduling Order”). (Docket Entry No. 47.) The Discovery Scheduling Order permitted the parties to, inter alia, undertake discovery in this action. (See id.) On October 16, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, moving to dismiss Plaintiff's ADA claim. (Docket Entry No. 64.) The Motion was granted and the ADA claim was dismissed without leave to amend on December 5, 2014. (Docket Entry No. 78.) Thus, the only claim remaining against Defendant at this time is the § 1983 claim.

On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (“Motion to Compel”). (Docket Entry No. 61.) Attached to Plaintiff's Motion are (1) Defendant's Response to Requests for Admission; (2) Defendant's Response to Interrogatories, Set One; and (3) Defendant's Response to Requests for Production of Documents. (Id.) After reviewing Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a statement specifying the discovery requests at issue in his Motion. (Docket Entry No. 62.) On October 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Clarifying Statement, specifying that he is seeking an order compelling Defendant to fully answer Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 1 through 28. (Docket Entry No. 67.) Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion to Compel on November 19, 2014. (Docket Entry No. 71.) Plaintiff filed a Reply on December 5, 2014. (Docket Entry No. 77.)

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. (Docket Entry No. 61.)

Plaintiff served 28 interrogatories on Defendant.[1] (See Docket Entry No. 61.) In response, Defendant objected to most of the interrogatories, referred to his responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission, and provided limited answers. (See id.) Consequently, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel, arguing that Defendant failed to fully respond to all 28 of his interrogatories. (See Docket Entry Nos. 61, 67.) However, Defendant contends that his objections are well-founded and his responses to the interrogatories are appropriate.

A. Meet and Confer Requirement

*2 As a threshold issue, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel should be denied for failure to meet and confer prior to filing the Motion as well as for filing the Motion itself instead of a joint stipulation. (Opp'n 3.) However, in the Court's Discovery Scheduling Order, the Court specifically exempted the parties from Central District Local Rules 37-1 and 37-2, which encompass the meet-and-confer and joint-stipulation requirements for discovery disputes. (Docket Entry No. 47, ¶ 4.) Accordingly, the Court will address the merits of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.

B. Plaintiff's Interrogatories

A party may serve written interrogatories on “any other party.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). “An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). Rule 26(b)(1) permits parties to “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense[.]” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). For the purpose of discovery, “[r]elevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” See id.

“Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). Furthermore, “[a] party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer ... if: ... a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33[.]” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). “The party opposing the discovery bears the burden of resisting disclosure.”[2] Bryant v. Armstrong, 285 F.R.D. 596, 600 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 299 (C.D. Cal. 1992)).

1. Interrogatory Numbers 1–5

Plaintiff's first five interrogatories cross reference his Request for Admission (“RFA”) Number 1, which reads as follows:

(Docket Entry No. 61.) Defendant responded to RFA Number 1 by incorporating his “Preliminary Statement and General Objections,” where he stated that his investigation was not yet complete. (Id.) Defendant then objected to RFA Number 1 as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad in scope and time. (Id.) However, Defendant did answer as follows:

*3 (Id.)

Interrogatory Number 1 reads,

(Docket Entry No. 61.) In response, Defendant wrote “See response to RFA No. 1.” (Id.)

In his Opposition, Defendant lumps arguments with respect to Interrogatory Numbers 1–3 together,[4] contending that the responses are appropriate because his response to RFA Number 1 contains the information sought. (Opp'n 7.) Furthermore, Defendant contends that his objections to RFA Number 1 are well-founded. (Opp'n 7.)

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff's Interrogatory Number 1, and all of the interrogatories at issue in this Motion to Compel, are not perfect. However, with some exceptions, the interrogatories served on Defendant are understandable and can be answered to some extent. Moreover, simply referencing Defendant's response to RFA Number 1 is inappropriate. See Mulero-Abreu v. Puerto Rico Police Dep't, 675 F.3d 88, 93 (1st Cir. 2012) (“[A]nswering interrogatories simply by directing the proponent to rummage through other discovery materials falls short of the obligations imposed by Rule 33.”); see also Foster v. ScentAir Techs., Inc., No. 13-cv-05722-THE(MEJ), 2014 WL 4063160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014) (“An answer to an interrogatory should be complete in itself and should not refer to the pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other interrogatories.”).

A request for admission is different than an interrogatory, and serves a different purpose. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 (interrogatories) with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 (requests for admission). In Interrogatory Number 1, Plaintiff seeks more than just an admission that Defendant was working the “pill line” at the prison at the time Plaintiff alleges that Defendant denied him his medication. Plaintiff is seeking “all facts upon which” Defendant's admission to working the “pill line” are based. Such facts might include the hours that Defendant worked on December 29, 2010, as well as the date seven days later when Plaintiff alleges that Defendant denied his pain medication despite doctor's orders. In his response to RFA Number 1, Defendant states that he “followed proper procedure for responding to hoarding.” A proper response to Interrogatory Number 1 would include a description of the procedure in place at the time to respond to hoarding.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to Interrogatory Number 1 is GRANTED. Defendant shall fully answer Interrogatory Number 1, but his response may be limited to the relevant time period as alleged in the FAC, which is approximately one week beginning December 29, 2010.

*4 Interrogatory Number 2 asks for the following:

(Docket Entry No. 61.) Defendant's response was identical to his response to Interrogatory Number 1: “See response to RFA No. 1.” (Id.)

The Court finds that Defendant's response to Interrogatory Number 2 is inadequate for the same reasons as his response to Interrogatory Number 1. Moreover, Defendant's response to RFA No. 1 does not identify any witnesses who have personal knowledge of Defendant's work schedule or who may have observed him working the “pill line” during the relevant time period. A witness with personal knowledge of Defendant's actions on that date might be a supervisor, coworker, or even another inmate. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to Interrogatory Number 2. Defendant shall respond to Interrogatory Number 2 by identifying any witnesses with personal knowledge of his actions toward Plaintiff at Ironwood State Prison during the relevant time period as alleged in the FAC — approximately one week beginning December 29, 2010.

Interrogatory Number 3 is identical to the previous two, except this time Plaintiff seeks “all DOCUMENTS that discuss, mention or explain the basis of” Defendant's response to RFA Number 1. (Docket Entry No. 61.) Defendant's response to Interrogatory Number 3 states, “The defendant acted within the policies and guidelines of CDCR[5] for dispensing medications to inmates.” (Id.) Defendant then generally refers Plaintiff to the documents produced in response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. (Id.) Based on a declaration attached to Defendant's Opposition, the only documents produced by Defendant in discovery are Plaintiff's prison medical records. (See Helfat Decl. ¶ 2.)

The Court finds Defendant's response to Interrogatory Number 3 insufficient. Plaintiff's prison medical records — although not provided to the Court — likely shed light on Plaintiff's medical condition and some of the events that occurred during the relevant time period. However, the Court does not believe that the overall “policies and guidelines of CDCR for dispensing medications to inmates” referenced in Defendant's response to Interrogatory Number 3 are contained in Plaintiff's personal medical records. If these “policies and guidelines” are in writing, then a proper response to Interrogatory Number 3 would be to specify exactly which policies and guidelines Defendant followed and where they are located. As an alternative, Defendant may produce the policies and guidelines. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to Interrogatory Number 3 is GRANTED and Defendant shall fully respond as discussed above.

*5 Interrogatory Numbers 4 and 5 are similar in that they both are predicated on an admission to RFA Number 1. (See Docket Entry No. 61.) As Defendant points out in his Opposition, since he did not admit to RFA Number 1, except to state that he was “in the pill line administering inmates medication,” he cannot answer these interrogatories beyond referring to his response to RFA Number 1.

Interrogatory Number 4 specifically seeks “any knowledge [Defendant has] as to why [he] over write an order from Doctor Lind.” (Id.) Defendant denies overwriting any doctor orders, so he cannot respond to Interrogatory Number 4. Moreover, Interrogatory Number 5 asks about future plans to recommend Plaintiff for MRIs, x-rays, and “other medical images.” (Id.) Defendant is not a doctor, but did provide Plaintiff with his prison medical record, which is likely the best source of information. Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has sufficiently responded to Interrogatory Numbers 4 and 5. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is DENIED as to Defendant's responses to Interrogatory Numbers 4 and 5.

2. Interrogatory Numbers 6–7

Interrogatory Numbers 6 and 7 seek similar information. Interrogatory Number 6 reads as follows:

(Docket Entry No. 61.) Interrogatory Number 7 differs in that it seeks the “current and PAS Protocol(s) of the CDCR” if different from Ironwood State Prison. (Id.)

Defendant objects to both interrogatories as unintelligible, vague, and overbroad in time and scope “making a response impossible.” (Id.) In his Opposition, Defendant also argues, among other things, that Plaintiff's allegations in the FAC only relate to Defendant passing out prescription medication. Thus, according to Defendant, the protocol for taking x-rays and “other medical images” is irrelevant. (Opp'n 11.)

The Court finds that while Interrogatory Numbers 6 and 7 are not unintelligible, they are vague and overbroad. For example, the meaning of “PAS protocol(s)” is not clear, although the Court suspects that Plaintiff intended to write “past protocol.” But more problematic is the fact that Plaintiff's § 1983 claim is based on Defendant's alleged accusations of hoarding medication and his subsequent denial of Plaintiff's pain medication after allegedly ripping up a doctor's prescription. The protocol for taking x-rays or “other medical images” is not relevant to whether Defendant violated Plaintiff's alleged constitutional right to his pain medication. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory Numbers 6 and 7.

3. Interrogatory Numbers 8–12

Interrogatories Numbers 8–12 cross reference Plaintiff's RFA Number 2, which reads as follows:

(Docket Entry No. 61.) Defendant again responds by incorporating his Preliminary Statement and General Objections. (Id.) Defendant then further objects to RFA Number 2 as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad as to time and scope. (Id.) He then answers as follows:

*6 (Id.)

Since Defendant's response to RFA Number 2 was not an unequivocal admission, Interrogatory Number 8 seeks “all facts upon which” Defendant's response to RFA Number 2 is based. (Docket Entry No. 61.) Interrogatory Number 9 is similar except that it asks Defendant to “IDENTIFY all witnesses with personal knowledge of the basis of [his] response.” (Id.) Interrogatory Number 10 seeks all documents that “discuss, mention, or explain the basis” of Defendant's response. (Id.) Defendant responded to all three of these interrogatories with “See response to RFA No. 2.” (Id.) Defendant also referred to the production of Plaintiff's medical records in response to Interrogatory Number 10.

The Court finds that Defendant should not have simply referenced his response to RFA Number 2. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) (requiring separate and complete answers to interrogatories); see also Mulero-Abreu, 675 F.3d at 93; Foster, 2014 WL 4063160, at *3. However, the substance of Defendant's response to RFA Number 2 appears to answer Interrogatory Numbers 8–10 to the best of Defendant's ability. Defendant is not responsible for conducting medical testing on Plaintiff or interpreting the results of such tests. Moreover, Defendant has provided Plaintiff with his prison medical records. Whether any testing was performed to assess Plaintiff's level of pain prior to the alleged incident involving Defendant would likely be noted on the record. Although Defendant did not strictly comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 by only referencing his response to RFA Number 2, Plaintiff now has the information sought in Interrogatory Numbers 8–10. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to these interrogatories.

Interrogatory Numbers 11 and 12 are similar. Interrogatory Number 11 reads as follows:

(Docket Entry No. 61.) Interrogatory Number 12 has the same predicate — an admission to RFA Number 2 — but asks Defendant to “provide any knowledge ... of plans to conduct such test.” (Id.) Defendant once again responded to both interrogatories by merely referring Plaintiff to his response to RFA Number 2. (Id.) In his response to Interrogatory Number 11, Defendant also pointed to the production of Plaintiff's medical records. (Id.)

As discussed above, Defendant's reference to his response to RFA Number 2 falls short of the requirements of Rule 33(b). An appropriate answer to Interrogatory Numbers 11 and 12 would read, “Defendant does not admit to RFA Number 2. Defendant is not responsible for conducting medical testing and therefore lacks personal knowledge.” Nevertheless, Interrogatory Numbers 11 and 12 are predicated on an admission to RFA Number 2, and Defendant did not admit to RFA Number 2. Moreover, Defendant's answer to RFA Number 2 goes beyond a simple denial to explain that Defendant is not responsible for medical testing. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff now has the full answer to Interrogatory Numbers 11 and 12 from Defendant. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is DENIED with respect to these interrogatories.

4. Interrogatory Number 13

*7 Interrogatory Number 13 reads as follows:

(Docket Entry No. 61.) Defendant objected to this interrogatory as “so vague, ambiguous and overbroad in time and scope that it is unintelligible.” (Id.) The Court sustains Defendant's objection. It is not clear from Plaintiff's interrogatory what information he is seeking. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to Interrogatory Number 13 is DENIED.

5. Interrogatory Number 14

Interrogatory Number 14 reads as follows:

(Docket Entry No. 61.) In response, Defendant again objected to the interrogatory as “so vague, ambiguous and overbroad in time and scope that it is unintelligible.”

As with all of Plaintiff's interrogatories, Interrogatory Number 14 is not a model of perfection. However, the Court interprets the question as Plaintiff seeking an explanation of CDCR's protocols for conducting medical testing of inmates with chronic back problems or bone fractures. While Defendant questions the meaning of the word “protocol,” the Court can easily define the term. In the medical context, “protocol” is defined as “a detailed plan of a scientific or medical experiment, treatment, or procedure.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protocol. Accordingly, the Court finds that the question is not unintelligible and can be answered by Defendant. Defendant's answer may be that he has no knowledge of the protocol for testing inmates with chronic back problems or bone fractures since he is not a doctor. However, it may be that Defendant has some knowledge of protocols for testing patients. For example, Defendant may only be permitted to dole out pain medication to inmates who have undergone certain testing. The Court can only speculate until Defendant fully responds to the interrogatory.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED with respect to Interrogatory Number 14. The Court interprets the interrogatory as explained above and Defendant shall respond to extent that he has personal knowledge of any protocols in place.

6. Interrogatory Numbers 15–19

Interrogatory Numbers 15–19 cross reference RFA Number 3, which reads as follows:

(Docket Entry No. 61.) Defendant again referred to his Preliminary Statement and General Objections in responding to RFA Number 3, and further objected to the request for admission as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. (Id.) Defendant then responded as follows:

*8 (Id.)

Interrogatory Number 15, as served on Defendant, is incomplete and poses no question. It reads: “If you response to Request for Admission No. 3.” (Docket Entry No. 61.) Defendant's objections to the interrogatory as incomplete and thus vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible are well taken.

However, Plaintiff provides the full interrogatory in his Reply. “If you response to Request for Admission No. 3 one is anything other than an unequivocal admission, state all facts upon which you response is based.” (Docket Entry No. 77.) Since the Court is already ordering Defendant to respondent to other interrogatories from Plaintiff, the Court finds that Defendant would only be mildly burdened by also answering the completed Interrogatory Number 15. An appropriate answer to this interrogatory may be a description of Defendant's job responsibilities, indicating that medical testing is not one of his responsibilities.

Interrogatory Numbers 16 and 17 are similar to the completed Interrogatory Number 15. They ask Defendant to identify all witness and documents that form the basis of Defendant's response to RFA Number 3. (See Docket Entry No. 61.) Defendant responded to these interrogatories by referring to his response to RFA Number 3 as well as Plaintiff's medical records. (Id.)

The Court finds Defendant's response to Interrogatory Number 16 insufficient, but is satisfied that Defendant has provided the requested information to the best of his ability with respect to Interrogatory Number 17. Defendant's response to Interrogatory Number 16 falls short because his response to RFA Number 3 does not identify any witnesses. If Defendant is not responsible for medical testing, a witness with knowledge of that information and Defendant's job responsibilities would likely be Defendant's supervisor. Defendant should respond to Interrogatory Number 16 with that information. On the other hand, Plaintiff's prison medical records seem an appropriate response to Interrogatory Number 17, since it seeks all documents that discuss, mention, or explain the reasons for not ordering medical testing.

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to Interrogatory Number 16 and DENIES the Motion with respect to Interrogatory Number 17.

Interrogatory Numbers 18 and 19 are predicated on an admission to RFA Number 3. Since Defendant did not admit to RFA Number 3, he is not required to answer these interrogatories. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is DENIED with respect to Interrogatory Numbers 18 and 19.

7. Interrogatory Numbers 20–21

Interrogatory Numbers 20 and 21 are similar. The interrogatories seek information about the protocols at Ironwood State Prison and CDCR for conducting medical testing on inmates with chronic lower back problems. (Docket Entry No. 61.) Defendant objects to the interrogatories as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, and also for being burdensome and oppressive. (Id.) The Court finds that while Defendant could have at least partially responded to these interrogatories, Plaintiff now has the requested information. As already discussed above, Defendant has denied any knowledge of, or responsibility for, medical testing of inmates. Defendant is a licensed vocational nurse and not a doctor. Therefore, requiring Defendant to respond to these interrogatories would be a lesson in futility since Defendant's response would be that he has no knowledge of protocols for medical testing. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is DENIED with respect Interrogatory Numbers 20 and 21.

8. Interrogatory Number 22

*9 Interrogatory Number 22 reads as follows:

(Docket Entry No. 61.) Defendant objects to the interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. (Id.) Defendant also objects to the interrogatory as burdensome and oppressive. (Id.) Defendant then responds to the interrogatory by referring Plaintiff to his medical records. (Id.)

The Court finds that Defendant's form objections have no merit with respect to Interrogatory Number 22. The question is clear, understandable, and relevant to Plaintiff's remaining claim. Moreover, Defendant fails to explain how the interrogatory is burdensome or oppressive. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.”); see also Nagele v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 193 F.R.D. 94, 109 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2000) (“It is settled law that to support an objection based upon burdensomeness the objecting party must particularize the basis for the objection as generalized assertions are inadequate.”). Defendant does argue that the question is overbroad as to time because it seeks information from December 29, 2010 to the present. (Opp'n 22.) To the extent that the interrogatory seeks information through the present, the Court narrows the interrogatory to the relevant time period of approximately one week beginning December 29, 2010. While Defendant contends that the interrogatory is not clear on the medication at issue, the Court construes the interrogatory as referring to the medication that was denied Plaintiff as alleged in the FAC.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED with respect to Interrogatory Number 22. Defendant is ordered to respond to the interrogatory as discussed above. Defendant need only respond to the extent of his personal knowledge. Plaintiff's prison medical records may be an additional source of information.

9. Interrogatory Numbers 23–27

The Court finds that Interrogatory Numbers 23–27 are repetitive, seeking the same information. Interrogatory Number 27 is representative and reads as follows:

(Docket Entry No. 61.) The other interrogatories refer to “guidelines or information” provided to CDCR employees about the treatment of chronic lower back disease. (Id.) Defendant objects to these interrogatories as irrelevant. (Id.) Defendant further objects to the interrogatories as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. (Id.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff's Interrogatory Numbers 23–27 are relevant. Any training or guidelines from CDCR on the treatment of chronic lower back problems, which would likely include pain management, is relevant to Plaintiff's § 1983 claim. If Defendant's alleged actions in the FAC did not comport with his training or CDCR treatment guidelines, that failure may suggest liability. Defendant's form objections are noted, but the Court finds that the interrogatories can be narrowed and combined, warranting a single response from Defendant. See, e.g., Green v. Baca, 219 F.R.D. 485, 490 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2003) (“It is within the discretion of a court ruling on a motion to compel to narrow the requests rather than sustain the responding party's objections to them in toto.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to Interrogatory Numbers 23–27 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to respond to the following: Describe any training or guidelines provided by the CDCR for the treatment of chronic lower back problems in inmates.

10. Interrogatory Number 28

*10 Plaintiff's final interrogatory — Interrogatory Number 28 — reads as follows:

(Docket Entry No. 61.) In response to Interrogatory Number 28, Defendant makes the same form objections that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and overbroad to the point of being unintelligible. (Id.)

The Court finds that Defendant's objections to Interrogatory Number 28 are misplaced. The interrogatory is clear and understandable. The fact that Plaintiff refers to “medico problems” as opposed to “medical problems” is not enough to render the interrogatory unintelligible. Defendant may not know the answer to this interrogatory, but he must respond with that fact. Some of the requested information may be contained in Plaintiff's prison medical records, and Defendant can refer Plaintiff to those medical records to the extent he lacks personal knowledge to answer the interrogatory. However, Defendant must respond to the interrogatory. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a response to Interrogatory Number 28 is GRANTED.

C. Sanctions Request

In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff also asks the Court to award him sanctions of either $15,000.00 or $30,000.00. (Docket Entry Nos. 61, 67, 77.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) only provides for attorneys' fees and reasonable expenses for bringing a successful motion to compel. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED since he is unrepresented by counsel and the Court cannot ascertain what, if any, expenses were incurred by bringing this Motion. Sanctions beyond attorneys' fees and reasonable expenses are only available if a party violates a court order compelling discovery, which has not occurred here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).

In sum, the Court makes the following rulings:

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a response to Interrogatory Numbers 1–3, 14–17, and 22–28. Defendant shall respond to these interrogatories in accordance with the Court's analysis above. Defendant shall serve his responses to these interrogatories on Plaintiff no later than February 23, 2015.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a response to Interrogatory Numbers 4–13 and 18–21.

The Court will separately issue a revised scheduling order in this action to afford Plaintiff time to review Defendant's interrogatory responses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff served more than the 25 interrogatories permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), but Defendant does not object on this basis. (Opp'n 6.) Moreover, as discussed below, a number of the interrogatories are repetitive and appear to seek the same information. Accordingly, the Court also gives Plaintiff leeway on the number of interrogatories. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).

In Defendant's Opposition, he argues that Plaintiff has an “initial burden” of proving that Defendant's discovery responses are insufficient. (Opp'n 4.) The only case cited by Defendant within the Ninth Circuit to support this “initial burden” is distinguishable. See James v. Scribner, No. CV 07-880-TUC-RCC, 2010 WL 2605634, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2010). In James, the court denied a pro se prisoner plaintiff's motion to compel for failure “to contest specific discovery responses and fail[ure] to present critical facts” to evaluate the discovery responses. Id. However, in this case, Plaintiff has identified the specific discovery responses at issue — Interrogatory Numbers 1–28 — and the Court finds that “critical facts” are unnecessary to evaluate the sufficiency of Defendant's rather limited responses.

The Court will not alter or correct spelling and grammatical errors in the discovery requests as such errors may be relevant to Defendant's objections.

The Court discusses Interrogatory Numbers 1–3 separately since they seek different information.

“CDCR” stands for California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.