Lamon v. Adams et al

Filing 76

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 74 Motion for the Court to Vacate or Amend It's Discovery Order; Request for prison officials to copy documents greater than 50 pages and to grant Plaintiff access to the law library is DENIED, signed by District Judge David G. Campbell on 8/13/2010. (Plaintiffs Motion to Compel due by 9/3/2010, Defendants Response due by 8/17/2010) (Marrujo, C)

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Barry Louis Lamon, Plaintiff, vs. Derral G. Adams, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 1:07-cv-00829-DGC ORDER

Plaintiff Barry Lamon is confined in the state prison in Corcoran, California. He commenced this pro se civil rights action by filing a complaint against several correctional officers. Doc. 1; see Doc. 27. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered an amended case management order. Doc. 68. That order sets an August 20, 2010 deadline for completion of fact discovery (id. ¶ 3) and provides that discovery motions and responses are not to exceed five pages each (id. ¶ 7). Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking a 30-day extension to file a motion to compel and leave to file a 10-page motion. Doc. 74. Plaintiff claims that Defendants' responses to multiple sets of discovery are inadequate and legally unfounded. Id. He argues that he is not able to fully challenge those responses in a five-page brief. Id. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff's requests on the condition that they receive the same page and time extensions. Doc. 75. The Court will grant Plaintiff's motion in part and deny it in part. Plaintiff will be granted leave to file a 10-page motion to compel, and Defendants may file a 10-page

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

response. No reply shall be filed. Plaintiff shall have until September 3, 2010 to file his motion to compel. The Court finds this to be sufficient time for Plaintiff to set forth, in a clear and concise manner, the specific reasons why he believes the responses to his discovery requests are not adequate. Defendants shall have until September 17, 2010 to file their response. Defendants do not need additional time given that, unlike Plaintiff, they are represented by counsel and are not incarcerated. This briefing schedule does not change the other deadlines set forth in the case management order. Doc. 68. Because Plaintiff has submitted copies of his discovery requests and related documents in connection with the instant motion (Doc. 74 at 6-121), the Court will deny his request for an order directing prison officials to copy documents greater than 50 pages (id. at 4). The Court also declines, on the present record, to order prison officials to grant Plaintiff access to the law library. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's motion for the Court to vacate or amend its case management order (Doc. 74) is granted in part and denied in part. 2. Plaintiff shall have until September 3, 2010 to file his motion to compel. Defendants' response is due September 17, 2010. No reply shall be filed. The motion and response shall not exceed 10 pages each. 3. All other deadlines set forth in the case management order (Doc. 68) remain in effect. 4. Plaintiff's request for an order directing prison officials to copy documents greater than 50 pages and to grant Plaintiff access to the law library is denied. DATED this 13th day of August, 2010.

-2-