Marti v. Padilla, et al

Filing 226

ORDER for Defendants to File a Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Deposition 210 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/19/11. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALEX LAMOTA MARTI,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE A
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STRIKE DEPOSITION
(Doc. 210.)

F. PADILLA, et al.,

15
16

1:07-cv-00066-LJO-GSA-PC

Defendants.

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE
RESPONSE

____________________________/

17

Alex Marti (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on January

19

12, 2007. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on

20

July 9, 2007, against twenty-two defendants (“Defendants”), on Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation

21

under the First Amendment. (Doc. 20.)

22

On July 29, 2010, Defendants’ filed a motion for summary judgment and lodged

23

Plaintiff’s deposition with the Court. (Docs. 173, 174.) On June 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

24

motion to strike the deposition because he was not afforded the opportunity to review the

25

transcript of the deposition for the purpose of noticing changes. (Doc. 210.) Defendants have

26

not filed a timely response to the motion. Local Rule 230(l). At this juncture, Defendants shall

27

be required to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to strike the deposition.

28

///

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of service of

2

this order, Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to strike the deposition, filed on

3

June 14, 2011.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

December 19, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE