Cantu v. Garcia et al

Filing 125

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 120 ; ORDER Extending Dispositive Motion Deadline to February 27, 2015, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/13/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

JOSHUA J. CANTU,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.
M. GARCIA, et al.,

13

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:09cv00177 AWI DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
(Document 120)
ORDER EXTENDING DISPOSITIVE
MOTION DEADLINE TO
FEBRUARY 27, 2015

14
15

Plaintiff Joshua J. Cantu (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

16
17

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this

18

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second

19

Amended Complaint against Defendants Garcia, Goree, Baptiste and Williams.1

20

This action is currently in discovery. The discovery deadline is October 24, 2014.

21

Dispositive motions must be filed by December 23, 2014.
22

On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Baptiste to provide

23
24
25
26

responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Interrogatories, Numbers 1-10. Defendant Baptiste filed an
opposition on October 28, 2014. Plaintiff did not file a reply and the motion is submitted
pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

27
1

28

Findings and Recommendations are pending regarding dismissal of Defendant Williams for failure to effectuate
service.
1

1

DISCUSSION

2
3
4

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense- including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and
location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who

5

know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter
6
7
8
9
10

relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be
admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(2)(C).
Here, Plaintiff served Defendant Baptiste with interrogatories on April 23, 2014, and has

11
12

not received responses. In his opposition, Defendant Baptiste points out that he was not yet a

13

party to this action in April 2014. Rather, he was served in August 2014 and appeared on

14

September 23, 2014.

15
16
17

Based on this, Defendant Baptiste argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied.
Alternatively, Defendant Baptiste requests that he be granted forty-five (45) days to respond to
the discovery requests.

18
19

The Court finds Defendant Baptiste’s alternate suggestion appropriate given the stage of
these proceedings. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel and ORDERS

20
21
22
23

Defendant Baptiste to provide responses to the discovery, served on April 23, 2014, within fortyfive (45) days of the date of service of this order. As the discovery deadline has already passed,
this does not permit Plaintiff to propound additional discovery.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28
2

1

The Court also EXTENDS the dispositive motion deadline to February 27, 2015.

2
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

November 13, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3