Lamon v. Junious et al

Filing 98

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 96 Motion to Compel as Premature, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/6/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL AS PREMATURE
[ECF No. 96]

Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On July 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his discovery requests. On
July 28, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.
On June 2, 2014, Plaintiff propounded nine sets of discovery requests on Defendants. (ECF

22

No. 94 at 3.) Pursuant to this Court’s discovery and scheduling order, responses to written discovery

23

requests are to be served forty-five days after the request is first served. (ECF No. 88 at 1.)

24

Furthermore, if service is made by mail, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure extend the deadline by

25

three days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C) and 6(d). Defendants’ discovery responses were due on or

26

before July 20, 2014 (which was a Sunday). Under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if

27

the last day for filing is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the deadline is extended to the first

28
1

1

accessible day that the clerk’s office is open. Therefore, Defendants discovery responses were due on

2

July 21, 2014.
On July 18, 2014, Defendants requested a thirty-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s

3
4

discovery requests on the grounds that the requests were extensive and required expansive review by

5

counsel. (ECF No. 94.)

6

On July 21, 2014, upon the basis of good cause, the Court granted Defendants thirty additional

7

days to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendants’ responses are now not due until August

8

20, 2014. Accordingly, because Defendants timely sought and were granted an extension of the

9

deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, Plaintiff’s instant motion to compel is premature

10

and shall be denied on such basis.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

August 6, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2