Halliday et al v. Spjute et al

Filing 299

ORDER RE Plaintiff Shelley Ioane's Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents re 220 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/27/2015. (Martinez, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

MICHAEL IOANE, et al.,

13

Plaintiffs,

14
15

Case No. 1:07-cv-00620-AWI-GSA

v.
KENT SPJUTE, et al.,

16

Defendants.

ORDER RE. PLAINTIFF SHELLEY
IOANE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS

17
(Doc. 220)
18
19

INTRODUCTION1

20
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Shelley Ioane’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel

21
22

responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents propounded to defendants.

23

Doc. 220. Defendants Kent R. Spjute, Jean Nole, Jeff Hodges, Brian Applegate, and Michelle M.

24

Casarez (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an opposition. Doc. 222. The motion was submitted

25

on the papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion

26

is DENIED.

27
28

1

The factual background of this case is familiar to the Court and the litigants and will not be repeated here.

1

1
2
3
4

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends that she served on Defendants two sets of interrogatories and one set of
requests for the production of documents on March 17, 2014, March 19, 2014, and March 27,
2014 respectively. Defendants’ did not respond to these discovery requests on grounds that they

5
6

were served late. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond to her discovery

7

requests. The question before the Court is whether Defendants’ timeliness objections should be

8

sustained.

9
10
11

Discovery requests must be made in a timely fashion. A party served with
interrogatories, requests for admissions or requests for production must respond within 30 days
after being served with the discovery requests. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b), 34(b) and 36(a)(3). This

12
13
14

Court has previously found that in order for discovery requests to be timely, the requesting party
must serve them at least 30 days before the discovery cutoff in order to allow the other party

15

sufficient time to respond. Miller v. Rufion, 2010 WL 4137278, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2010)

16

(“discovery requests must be served at least 30 days prior to the discovery deadline”). Other

17

courts have similarly found that discovery requests served within 30 days of the discovery

18

deadline are untimely. See Thomas v. Pacificorp, 324 F.3d 1176, 1179 (10th Cir. 2003) (stating

19
that discovery requests served on the date of discovery cut off would be untimely); Smith v.
20
21

Principal Cas. Ins. Co., 131 F.R.D. 104, 105 (S.D. Miss.1990) (holding that interrogatories

22

served six (6) days prior to the discovery cut off were untimely); Brooks v. Johnson & Johnson,

23

1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8144, *3, 1990 WL 92569 (E.D. Pa. June 28, 1990) (holding that requests

24

for discovery must be made with “sufficient time to allow the answering party to respond before

25

the termination of discovery”); Northern Indiana Public Serv. Co. v. Colorado Westmoreland,

26

Inc., 112 F.R.D. 423, 424 (N.D. Ind. 1986) (stating that it is “common sense” that requests must

27
be made with sufficient time to respond before the deadline); Bishop v. Potter, 2010 WL
28
2

1
2
3
4

2775332, at *1 (D. Nev. July 14, 2010) (accord).
Here Plaintiff served her discovery requests on March 17, 2014, March 19, 2014, and
March 27, 2014, well within 30 days of the applicable discovery cut-off of April 4, 2014 set forth
in the Court’s scheduling order. Therefore Plaintiff’s discovery requests are untimely. Moreover,

5
6

Plaintiff’s explanations for the delay in serving her discovery requests—i.e., the difficulties of

7

coordinating with her incarcerated husband and the limitations of being a pro se party— are too

8

general to be persuasive. Plaintiff must abide by all applicable civil procedure and discovery

9

rules. Here she served her discovery requests late and also propounded an excessive number of

10
11

interrogatories. The Court sustains Defendants’ objection based on the untimeliness of Plaintiff’s
discovery requests. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses from Defendants is

12
13

accordingly DENIED.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 27, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3