Lombardelli v. Halsey, et al.

Filing 64

ORDER Granting in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Modification of Scheduling Order 59 ; ORDER Disregarding Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time as Moot 60 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/1/11. Discovery Cut-Off Date - November 30, 2011. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ALFRED C. LOMBARDELLI, 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:08-CV-00658-AWI-DLB PC ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC. 59) v. K. HALSEY, et al., 12 ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT (DOC. 60) Defendants. 13 DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE - November 30, 2011 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Alfred C. Lombardelli (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 17 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding 19 against Defendants Carter, Halsey, Ortiz, Sanchez, Smyth, and R. Vogel. Pending before the 20 Court are: 1) Plaintiff’s motion to modify the discovery cut-off date, filed September 14, 2011; 21 and 2) Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, filed September 16, 2011. Docs. 59, 60. The 22 matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). 23 I. Motion For Extension Of Time 24 Plaintiff moves for an extension of time to comply with Defendants’ request for 25 production of documents. Doc. 60. Plaintiff contends that Defendants requested that Plaintiff 26 produce responsive documents for purposes of Plaintiff’s scheduled deposition on September 22, 27 2011. Plaintiff appears to contend that Defendants’ counsel requested the production of all 28 documents that Plaintiff intends to use at trial. Plaintiff submitted a request using prison 1 1 procedures for obtaining these documents from his central file, but had yet to receive access at 2 the time his motion was filed. Plaintiff thus requests a thirty-day extension of time to produce 3 these documents for Defendants. The deposition has presumably occurred and concluded. Thus 4 this motion appears to be moot. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion 5 for extension of time to produce documents at the deposition, filed September 16, 2011, is 6 DISREGARDED as moot.1 7 II. 8 9 Motion To Modify Discovery Cut-Off Date Plaintiff moves for a modification of the discovery cut-off date, seeking an extension of an additional forty-five days. Doc. 59. Defendants oppose the motion. Doc. 61. 10 Plaintiff contends that he propounded discovery on Defendants on April 18, 2011. Pl.’s 11 Mot. 1. Plaintiff received Defendants’ responses on August 25, 2011. Id. Plaintiff contends that 12 these responses were inadequate because they were ambiguous, unclear, and evasive. Id. 13 Defendants contend that Plaintiff has provided no good cause as to why he needs additional time 14 to propound an unlimited amount of new discovery. Defs.’ Opp’n 3:3-13. Defendants contend 15 that Plaintiff also advised Defendants that he would seek a motion to compel further responses to 16 interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Id. 17 Good cause is required to modify the Court’s schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The 18 Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause as to a modification of the scheduling 19 order for purposes of propounding new discovery. Plaintiff’s arguments all relate to the 20 inadequacy of Defendants’ responses. Propounding new discovery would not appear to address 21 Plaintiff’s concerns. However, in the interests of justice, the Court will grant a modification of 22 the scheduling order for purposes of filing motions to compel only. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 28 1 If Defendants’ counsel is requesting the production of these documents pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, Defendants’ counsel was required to serve such discovery request forty-five days before the discovery deadline. Discovery and Scheduling Order, Doc. 51. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The court does not hold litigants proceeding pro se to the same standards that it holds lawyers. However, as the moving party, Plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, which of Defendants' responses are disputed, why he believes Defendants' responses are deficient, why Defendants' objections are not justified, and why the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. See, e.g., Brooks v. Alameida, No. CIV S-03-2343 JAM EFB P, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9568, 2009 WL 331358, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) (“Without knowing which responses plaintiff seeks to compel or on what grounds, the court cannot grant plaintiff's motion.”); Ellis v. Cambra, No. CIV 02-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109050, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008) (“Plaintiff must inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the court why the information sought is relevant and why Defendant's objections are not justified.”). 9 Haynes v. Sisto, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121246, at *2-3 (E. D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2010); see also 10 Williams v. Flint, No. CIV S-06-1238 FCD GGH P, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98794, 2007 WL 11 2274520, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2007) (“It is plaintiff's burden to describe why a particular 12 response is inadequate. It is not enough to generally argue that all responses are incomplete.”). 13 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for modification of the 14 discovery cut-off date, filed September 14, 2011, is GRANTED in part. The discovery cut-off 15 date for motions to compel is November 30, 2011. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a November 1, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?