Bender v. Sullivan et al

Filing 54

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motions To Compel As Untimely (Docs. 49 & 50 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/9/2012. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 FLOYD EUGENE BENDER, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:09-cv–00575-LJO-GBC (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL AS UNTIMELY v. Docs. 49 & 50 12 13 W.J. SULLIVAN, et al., Defendants. / 14 15 On March 30, 2009, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 16 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 21, 2010, the Court issued a discovery 17 and scheduling order, setting a discovery deadline of December 21, 2010. Doc. 21. On December 18 20, 2010, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for extension of time to take Plaintiff’s deposition 19 on January 21, 2011. Doc. 30. On February 3, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for 20 extension of time to take Plaintiff’s deposition on February 28, 2011. Doc. 35. On May 23, 2011, 21 the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and ordered sanctions against 22 Plaintiff for failing to appear for his deposition. Doc. 40. On June 24, 2011, Defendants took 23 Plaintiff’s deposition. Doc. 42. On July 18, 2011, Plaintiff mailed interrogatories and requests for 24 productions of documents to Defendants. Docs. 49 & 50. On July 31, 2011, Defendants received 25 Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defs. Resp. Ex. A. On August 5, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for 26 summary judgment. Doc. 41. On September 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for 27 summary judgment and filed two motions to compel. Docs. 48, 49, 50. On September 26, 2011, 28 Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motions to compel. Doc. 52. Page 1 of 2 1 In the discovery and scheduling order, the Court ordered the parties to serve all discovery 2 requests at least forty-five days before the discovery deadline. Doc. 21. Additionally, the Court 3 ordered that the parties complete all discovery, including the filing of motions to compel, by the 4 discovery deadline of December 21, 2010. Id. 5 In this case, the Court extended the deadline to take Plaintiff’s deposition, ordered sanctions 6 against Plaintiff for failing to appear for his deposition, and set the dispositive motion deadline for 7 forty-five days following Plaintiff’s deposition. Docs. 30, 35, 40. The discovery deadline remained 8 December 21, 2010, and Plaintiff did not move to extend the discovery deadline. Plaintiff mailed his 9 discovery requests approximately seven months after the discovery deadline had passed. 10 Despite his pro se status, Plaintiff is not entitled to any latitude for the untimeliness. See 11 Fingerhut Corp. v. Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856–57 (8th Cir. 1996) (stating that pro 12 se representation does not excuse a litigant from complying with court orders); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 13 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (explaining that although courts should liberally construe pro se 14 plaintiffs’ legal arguments and strictly construe their compliance with procedural requirements); see 15 also Carter v. Comm’r, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008–09 (9th Cir.1986) (noting that pro se plaintiffs must 16 follow the rules of the court). Therefore, Plaintiff’s discovery requests and motions to compel are 17 untimely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). 18 19 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to compel, filed September 9, 2011, are DENIED as untimely. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: 0jh02o January 9, 2012 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?