Newsome v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 51

ORDER Denying Discovery Related Motions 40 41 48 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/15/2010. (Esteves, C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 WAYNE ELDERWIN NEWSON, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On January 4, 2010, Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, filed two motions for extensions of time to respond to various discovery requests made by Defendant. (Docs. 40 and 41). On March 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed another Motion entitled, "Relief from Waiver of Right to Produce Writings and Documents." (Doc. 48). In the last motion, Plaintiff contends that his completed responses to the discovery requests were forwarded to Defendant on March 5, 2010, and he seeks a waiver from the Court because it appears that his responses were not timely filed. Plaintiff is advised that the Court does not grant extensions of time to answer discovery requests. The Court does not become involved in discovery disputes until a Motion to Compel Discovery is filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Therefore, all of Plaintiff's motions are DENIED. Plaintiff is advised that any requests for extension of time to respond to the discovery requests should be directed to opposing counsel. Although Plaintiff's motions references the California Civil Code, Plaintiff is advised that the discovery procedures are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Given that Plaintiff is pro per, the parties are encouraged to 1 v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-663 OWW GSA ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY RELATED MOTIONS (Docs. 40, 41 and 48)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 2 3

work together to complete the discovery process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij

April 15, 2010

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2