Phillip W. Dunn v. Cate et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying 56 Motion to Compel signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 7/28/2010. (Lundstrom, T)

(PC) Phillip W. Dunn v. Cate et al

Doc. 58

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 vs. Matthew Cate, et al., Defendants. Phillip Dunn Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-08-0873-NVW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 56). The Court issued a discovery and scheduling order on February 4, 2010. As noted by Defendants, the order stated that all discovery had to be completed, and all motions to compel had to be filed on or before June 11, 2010. The order also stated that all written requests for discovery had to be served on the opposing party no later than forty-five days before the discovery cutoff date to allow the responding forty-five days to respond. Plaintiff served a request for admissions and a set of interrogatories on May 27, 2010, and a motion to compel the responses to those requests on July 19, 2010. On May 27, 2010, Plaintiff's request for admissions and interrogatories were already late as the deadline was forty-five days before the discovery cutoff, or April 28, 2010. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel was similarly filed well past the discovery deadline. Plaintiff has provided no explanation for his tardiness, nor did he previously seek to extend the discovery deadlines. This case is already two years old. In light of Plaintiff's failure to

Dockets.Justia.com

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

explain his failure to comply with the Court's deadlines and in order to avoid further delay, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendants to respond to his discovery requests. The Court will also deny Plaintiff's request that the Court prohibit Defendants from filing a motion for summary judgment. The Court already granted Defendants an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment. Defendants have not had an opportunity to file a dispositive motion on the merits of Plaintiff's allegations after conducting discovery. Plaintiff has not provided a legal or equitable basis for denying Defendants the opportunity to file a motion for summary judgment. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 56) is denied. DATED this 28th day of July, 2010.

-2-