1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TORY BRATTON, No. 2:21-CV-0076-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CASTILLO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18

. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to 19 requests for production of documents, ECF No. 38, and Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to 20 interrogatories, ECF No. 39. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for an in camera review, 21 ECF No. 40. Defendants have filed oppositions to all three motions, ECF Nos. 41 and 42. 22 In his motions to compel, Plaintiff does not challenge the sufficiency of responses 23 received but, instead, argues that he never received responses. See ECF Nos. 38 and 39. As 24 reflected in defense counsel's declaration, Plaintiff served requests for production of documents 25 on all Defendants on April 14, 2024, interrogatories on Defendants Castillo, Roland, and Sanchez 26 on April 17, 2024, and interrogatories on Defendants Black and Staggs-Boatright on April 24, 27 2024. See ECF No. 41-1, pgs. 1-2. Defendants served responses to Plaintiff's requests for 28 production and Plaintiff's interrogatories to Defendants Castillo, Roland, and Sanchez on June 3, 1 |} 2024. See

. Defendants served responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories to Defendants Black 2 | and Staggs-Boatright on June 7, 2024. See

3 Plaintiff's motions to compel were signed on May 29, 2024, and filed on June 10, 4 | 2024. See ECF Nos. 38 and 39. It appears, as Defendants note, that the motions crossed in the 5 || mail with Defendants’ responses. Because timely responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests were 6 || provided by Defendants, Plaintiffs' motions will be denied as moot. See Romero v. L.H. Herrera 7 || Income Tax & Ins.,

, at *4-5 (C.D. Cal. 2021). Finally, because 8 | Plaintiffs motions do not challenge the sufficiency of Defendants’ responses, Plaintiff's motion 9 || for an in camera review will be denied as unnecessary. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1] 1. Plaintiff's motions to compel, ECF Nos. 38 and 39, are denied as moot. 12 2. Plaintiff's motion for an in camera review, ECF No. 40, is denied as 13 || unnecessary. 14 15 | Dated: August 30, 2024 SS GC 16 DENNIS M. COTA 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28