Boyd v. Robles et al

Filing 44

ORDER Denying The Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery 35 . ORDER Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Production of Documents 36 . ORDER Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Production of Documents. The Plaintiff shall have up to and including A ugust 8, 2009 to answer interrogatories and produce documents. The Plaintiff must attend his deposition in Sacramento unless the Defendants otherwise stipulate to video conference. The Defendants may file a motion to compel discovery on or before August 24, 2009, signed by District Judge Raner Collins on 7/6/09. (Gil-Garcia, A)

Download PDF
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 Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Discovery, to Produce Documents, and to Extend the Deadline to Respond to Interrogatories. The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and to Produce documents were pre-mature and will be denied. The Plaintiff has not filed a reply to the Defendants' response stating the documents produced were inadequate, and this Order does not preclude the Plaintiff from challenging the sufficiency of discovery produced. The Plaintiff has shown good cause to his unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time. Therefore, the Court will grant the requested extension. As a result of the Plaintiff's extension, the Defendants may file a motion to compel discovery on or before August 24, 2009. The Plaintiff is reminded that he is required to attend his deposition and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of his case. vs. C/O A. ROBLES; et al., Defendants. RICKEY DONNELL BOYD, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 07-1510-TUC-RCC ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION 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 and Consistent with discussion above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1) The Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Docket No. 35) is DENIED; 2) The Plaintiff's Motion for Production of Documents (Docket No. 36) is DENIED; 3) The Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time to Answer Interrogatories, Produce Documents and Video Conference (Docket No. 41) is GRANTED. The Plaintiff shall have up to and including August 8, 2009 to answer interrogatories and produce documents. The Plaintiff must attend his deposition in Sacramento unless the Defendants otherwise stipulate to video conference. The Defendants may file a motion to compel discovery on or before August 24, 2009 DATED this 6th day of July, 2009. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?