Cantu v. Garcia et al

Filing 53

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motions to Compel 49 , 50 ; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motions to Modify Scheduling Order 51 , 52 ; REVISED DEADLINE TO AMEND PLEADINGS: November 13, 2012; REVISED DISCOVERY DEADLINE: January 14, 2013; REVISED DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE: March 14, 2013, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 9/12/12. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
JOSHUA J. CANTU,

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00177-AWI-GBC (PC)

8
9

Plaintiff,

10

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO COMPEL
Docs. 49, 50

v.
11
12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
M. GARCIA, et al.,
Doc. 51, 52

13
14

Defendants.

REVISED DEADLINE TO AMEND
PLEADINGS: NOVEMBER 13, 2012

15

REVISED DISCOVERY DEADLINE:
JANUARY 14, 2013

16
17

REVISED DISPOSITIVE MOTION
/ DEADLINE: MARCH 14, 2013

18
19

On January 15, 2009, Plaintiff Joshua J. Cantu (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro

20

se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On July 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed

21

an amended complaint. Doc. 12. On November 29, 2010, the Court found a cognizable Eighth

22

Amendment claim for excessive force against M. Garcia and failure to intervene excessive force

23

against three doe defendants. Doc. 14. On January 3, 2012, the Court issued a discovery and

24

scheduling order, setting a deadline to amend pleadings of July 3, 2012, a discovery deadline of

25

September 3, 2012, and a dispositive motion deadline of November 13, 2012. Doc. 25.

26

On March 23, 2012, Defendant Garcia filed a motion for a twenty-one (21) day extension of

27

time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests from February 9, 2012. Doc. 47. In Defendant’s

28

motion, counsel stated that she had been very ill. Id. On April 10, 2012, the Court granted
Page 1 of 3

1

Defendant’s motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Doc. 48.

2

On May 11, 2012 and May 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, stating Defendant

3

had not responded to his discovery requests from February 9, 2012. Docs. 49, 50. In Plaintiff’s

4

motions, he does not reference the Court’s order granting an extension of time, so it is unclear

5

whether Plaintiff filed his motions after waiting for Defendant’s extended time to respond. Id.

6

On July 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to amend pleadings regarding the Doe

7

Defendants. Doc. 51. In Plaintiff’s motion, he states that he has not received a response to his first

8

set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Id. Plaintiff states that he has filed

9

a motion to compel, which is pending in this Court Id. Plaintiff states that he needs the discovery

10

to identify the Doe Defendants. Id. Plaintiff does not include the date he submitted the first set of

11

interrogatories and requests for production of documents, but it appears that Plaintiff is referring to

12

the same set of original interrogatories from February 9, 2012. See id.

13

On August 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline. Doc. 52. In

14

Plaintiff’s motion, he again states that he has not received any discovery responses from Defendant.

15

Id.

16
17

Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s four (4) pending motions. This matter is deem
submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

18

Plaintiff contends that he has never received responses to his original discovery requests from

19

February 9, 2012. Docs. 49, 50, 51, 52. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s assertion. Thus, the

20

Court has no record that Defendant has ever submitted discovery responses to Plaintiff. Therefore,

21

the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to Plaintiff’s original first set of

22

interrogatories and requests for production of documents from February 9, 2012.

23

Considering Plaintiff has not received any responses to discovery, the Court will grant his

24

motions to modify the scheduling order. Since the Court is extending the deadline to amend

25

pleadings and the discovery deadline, the Court also finds it necessary to extend the dispositive

26

motion deadline.

27

//

28

//
Page 2 of 3

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3

Plaintiff’s motions to compel are GRANTED, as to Plaintiff’s original first set of
interrogatories and requests for production of documents from February 9, 2012;

4

2.

5

Defendants are DIRECTED to respond to Plaintiff’s original discovery requests from
February 9, 2012;

6

3.

Plaintiff’s motions to modify the scheduling order are GRANTED;

7

4.

The revised deadline to amend pleadings is November 13, 2012;

8

5.

The revised discovery deadline is January 14, 2013; and

9

6.

The revised dispositive motion deadline is March 14, 2013.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:
7j8cce

September 12, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3