Lopez v. Florez et al

Filing 144

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 125 Motion for Extension of Time to File Discovery Requests; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 134 Motion that Defendants Failed to Respond to Discovery, Motion for Sanctions and/or to Compel and Request for Counsel; ORDER Granting Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery and Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 03/26/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDREW LOPEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

FLOREZ, et. al,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-01975 –LJO- JLT (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISCOVERY
REQUESTS
(Doc. 125)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION THAT
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO RESPOND TO
DISCOVERY, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
AND/OR TO COMPELAND REQUEST FOR
COUNSEL
(Doc. 134)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
DISCOVERY AND RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
(Doc. 143).

24
25

Plaintiff Andrew Lopez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

26

with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for an

27

extension of time to file motions to compel discovery (Doc. 125) and Plaintiff’s numerous motions to

28

compel discovery (Docs. 134, 135, 137, and 139). Also before the Court is joint motion for extension
1

1

of time to respond to discovery and respond to Plaintiff’s motions to compel in regard to Documents

2

135, 137, and 139. (Doc. 143).

3

Having the read and considered the pleadings, and for the following reasons, the Court

4

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Doc. 125), GRANTS Defendants’ motions for

5

extension of time (Doc. 143), DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s notice that Defendants failed to respond to

6

discovery, motion for sanctions and/or to compel (“notice of failure”)(Doc. 134), and DENIES

7

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 134).

8

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

9

On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion to compel

10

discovery for fourteen days beyond March 4, 2013, which was the date set forth in the discovery and

11

scheduling order (Doc. 78). (Doc. 125). Without leave of the Court, on March 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed

12

a notice of Defendants’ failure to respond to discovery, motion for sanctions and/or motion to

13

compel.1 (Doc. 134). Again, without leave of the Court, Plaintiff filed another motion to compel

14

discovery on March 13, 2013. (Doc. 135). Also on March 13, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a notice of

15

Defendants’ failure to respond to interrogatories. (Doc. 139). On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a

16

third motion to compel discovery. (Doc. 139).

17

On March 21, 2013, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel and

18

request for sanctions (Doc. 134). (Doc. 142). On March 25, 2013, Defendants’ submitted a motion

19

requesting an extension of time of sixty (60) days in which to respond to Plaintiff’s motions to compel

20

discovery as contained in Documents 135, 137, and 139. (Doc. 143).

21

II.

Discussion.

22

A. Plaintiff has shown diligence in complying with the discovery and scheduling order.

23

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d), a discovery and scheduling order controls the course of litigation

24

unless the Court subsequently alters the original order. A court may modify the original order on a

25

party’s demonstration of “good cause” if the deadlines set forth in the scheduling order cannot be met

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff is advised that filing notices with the Court related to Defendants’ conduct has absolutely no effect and the Court
takes no action on them. The Court considers only properly filed motions. Plaintiff is admonished to stop filing frivolous
documents such as notices related to Defendants’ conduct. In future, all such “notices” will be disregarded.

2

1

“despite diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s note,

2

1983 Amendment. To prove “diligence,” the Court may require the moving party to prove:

3
4
5
6
7

“(1) that [he] was diligent in assisting the Court in creating a workable [scheduling and
discovery order] order; (2) that [his] noncompliance with [the scheduling and discovery
order] occurred or will occur [] because of [] matters which could not have been reasonably
foreseen or anticipated at the time of the…scheduling conference; and (3) that [he] was diligent
in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that [he] could not
comply with the order.”
Franklin v. Felker, 2:11-CV-2055 KJN P, 2012 WL 3234234 (E.D. Cal. 2012).

8

Here, the record indicates that Plaintiff was diligent in seeking to comply with discovery.

9

Plaintiff states that several sets of discovery responses were due prior to the March 4, 2013, for

10

discovery completion. (Doc. 125 at ¶ 3)(emphasis added). It is indicated that Plaintiff did not serve

11

his discovery requests to Defendants in such a way that they would be due after the March 4 discovery

12

deadline. Id. Plaintiff cites to the prison’s delay in processing mail as the reason for his request for

13

this extension and notes that the time of in which he receives his mail is beyond his control. (Doc. 125

14

at ¶ 4). Plaintiff indicates, for example, that on one occasion he did not receive discovery documents

15

until seven days after they were mailed by the Defendants. Id. Given the nature of his incarceration,

16

the Court finds that the timing in which Plaintiff receives his mail is beyond the control of Defendant

17

and that the Plaintiff was diligent in seeking to comply with discovery.

18

In addition, Plaintiff was diligent in seeking to amend the scheduling and discovery order.

19

Plaintiff filed his motion for extension of time on February 19, 2013. (Doc. 125). This was over ten

20

days prior to the March 4, 2013 order. Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for extension of

21

time to file his motions to compel discovery for fourteen days beyond the March 4, 2013, discovery

22

deadline.

23

contained in Documents 134, 135, 137, and 139, but the Court WILL NOT CONSIDER any further

24

motions to compel discovery.

25
26

Therefore, the Court WILL CONSIDER Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery as

B. Defendants are given sixty days in which to respond to Plaintiff’s multiple motions to
compel discovery.

27

Plaintiff filed a total of four motions to compel discovery between March 7, 2013, and March

28

18, 2013. See (Doc. 134, 135, 137, and 139). The Court notes that in these four motions, Plaintiff
3

1

recites a plethora of discovery violations to which Defendants must answer. See generally, Id. In

2

addition, the Court notes that these motions to compel discovery were filed without awaiting the

3

Court’s order granting or denying his request for extension of time (Doc. 125).2

4

Defendants indicate in their motion that they seek an extension of sixty (60) days in which to

5

respond to Plaintiff’s untimely motions to compel and to respond to the additional discovery responses

6

Plaintiff seeks. (Doc. 143).3 Therefore, Defendants are GRANTED 60 days from the date of service

7

of this Order to respond to discovery and to Plaintiff’s motions to compel in regard to Documents 135,

8

137, and 139. (Doc. 143).
C. Defendants have responded to set two of Plaintiff’s request for production of
documents and set two of Plaintiff’s request for admission.

9
10

Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling and discovery order in this matter, each party is given forty-

11
12
13

five (45) days in which to respond to discovery requests after discovery requests are served. (Doc. 78
at ¶ 2). When computing days under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are
“ to exclude the day of the event that triggers the period, [] count every day, including
intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and [] include the last day of the period,
but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the
end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.”

14
15
16

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). Notably, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) adds three days whenever service is

17

accomplished by mail.

18

In his notice of failure, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ failed to respond to set two of his

19

requests for admission and set two of his request for production of documents because they failed to

20

respond by March 1, 2013. (Doc. 34 at 1-2). He avers that he served these requests on January 9,

21

2013. Id. Defendants indicate they submitted their response to Plaintiff’s requests for admission and

22

request for production of documents on February 26, 2013. (Doc. 142 at 2).

23

Using the formula provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) and (d), the Court finds that Defendants’

24

response to set two of Plaintiff’s requests for admission and set two of Plaintiff’s request for

25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff is forewarned that in the future his failure to await the Court’s leave to file documents outside of the time
permitted may result in the automatic denial of his motion for failure to comply with Court order.
3
While the parties are not required to certify to the Court that they sought to rectify their discovery differences prior to
bringing their discovery differences to this Court, the Court encourages Plaintiff and Defendants to seek to resolve their
discovery differences prior to the close of this sixty (60) day period.

4

1

production of documents were due on February 26, 2013 and were, in fact, served on this date.

2

Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s notice that Defendants failed to respond to discovery, motion

3

for sanctions and/or to compel (Doc. 134) as moot.
D. Plaintiff has shown no exceptional circumstances in which the Court may appoint

4

counsel for him.

5
6

Finally, the Court notes Plaintiff’s repeated request for appointment of counsel. See e.g., (Doc.

7

44, 134). As the Court noted previously – and which it continues to note – Plaintiff appears to believe

8

that by continually calling for assistance of counsel he will elicit a different response from the Court.

9

(Doc. 140). He will not. As no exceptional circumstances have been cited by Plaintiff that would

10

permit the Court to appoint counsel (Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District

11

of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989)), Plaintiff’s request for assistance of counsel is again DENIED.
ORDER

12
13

Having read and considered the parties’ motions, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

14

1. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for a fourteen (14) day extension of time to file a

15

motion to compel discovery (Doc. 125) from the March 4, 2013 deadline.

The Court WILL

16

CONSIDER Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery as contained in Documents 134, 135, 137, and

17

139. The Court WILL NOT consider any further motions to compel discovery and no further

18

extensions of time to file motions to compel discovery will be granted.
2. The Court GRANTS Defendants sixty days from the date of service of this Order in which

19
20

to respond to Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery as contained in Documents 135, 137, and 139.

21

(Doc. 143). The Court will rule on all of Plaintiff’s outstanding motions to compel discovery as

22

contained in documents 135, 137, and 139.
3. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s notice that Defendants failed to respond to discovery,

23
24

motion for sanctions and/or to compel (Doc. 134) as moot.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
5

4. The Court again DENIES Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 134).

1
2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated:

March 26, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6