Gil v. Yates et al

Filing 73

ORDER GRANTING 59 Motion to Serve Defendants by CM/ECF; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Order Defendant to Depose Plaintiff by Written Questions or Video in Mexico and GRANTING Defendant's Request to Depose Plaintiff after Motion fo r Summary Judgment, If Necessary 61 , 63 , 67 ; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Motion to Extend Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines 60 , 62 , 64 , 68 , 68 , 69 , 70 ; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of TIme to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment, as premature 71 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 01/02/2013. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
FRANCISCO GIL,

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00917-GBC (PC)

9
10

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO SERVE DEFENDANT BY CM/ECF
Doc. 59

v.
12

15

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO ORDER DEFENDANT TO DEPOSE
PLAINTIFF BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS OR
VIDEO IN MEXICO AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO DEPOSE
PLAINTIFF AFTER MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IF NECESSARY

16

Doc. 61, 63, 67

17

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO EXTEND
DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION
DEADLINES

13

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

14
Defendants.

18
19

Doc. 60, 62, 64, 68, 69, 70
20
21
22
23

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
AS PREMATURE
/ Doc. 71

24
25

On May 26, 2009, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

26

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he was found guilty of possession of

27

a controlled substance when he should have been charged with possession of a controlled

28

medication. Doc. 1. On September 2, 2011, the Court ordered this action to proceed on a cognizable
Page 1 of 3

1

Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendant J. Woodend, and dismissed all

2

remaining claims and defendants. Doc. 41. On January 30, 2012, the Court issued a discovery and

3

scheduling order, setting a discovery deadline of September 30, 2012, and a dispositive motion

4

deadline of December 10, 2012. Doc. 51. On August 10, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion

5

to extend the discovery deadline to November 14, 2012. Doc. 58. The Court also extended the

6

dispositive motion deadline to January 24, 2013. Id.

7

On August 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed one (1) motion to serve Defendant by CM/ECF since

8

Plaintiff is sending mail from Mexico; two (2) motions for Defendant to depose Plaintiff by written

9

questions or video in Mexico; and three (3) motions to extend the discovery and dispositive motion

10

deadlines. Docs. 59-64. On October 4, 2012, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s six (6) motions

11

and a request to depose Plaintiff following disposition of a motion for summary judgment, if

12

necessary. Doc. 67. On November 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend discovery and

13

dispositive motion deadlines, a motion to compel, and a motion that the Court grant his motions.

14

Docs. 68-70. On December 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond to any

15

motion for summary judgment. Doc. 71. On December 5, 2012, Defendant filed an opposition to

16

Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Doc. 72. This matter is deem submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

17

First, Defendant does not object to Plaintiff serving him through CM/ECF. See Def. Resp.

18

at 3-4, Doc. 67. Second, Plaintiff moves to compel discovery, but Defendant has complied with all

19

discovery requests. Id. at 2; see also Def. Opp’n Mot. Compel at 2, Doc. 72. Third, Plaintiff does not

20

provide good cause to further extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. See Docs. 60,

21

62, 64, 68. This case has been pending since 2009, and the Court already granted Plaintiff’s motion

22

to extend the discovery deadline from September 2012 to November 2012. Plaintiff states the Court

23

should extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines because Defendant has failed to

24

comply with discovery. Doc. 62, 68. However, the Court has found that Defendant properly

25

responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. See supra. Moreover, in Plaintiff’s premature motion for

26

extension of time to respond to Defendant’s [non-pending] motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff

27

acknowledges receipt of Defendant’s response to his motions and does not renew his motion to

28

extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. See Pl. Mot. EOT at 1-2, Doc. 71. Plaintiff
Page 2 of 3

1

also acknowledges the delay in receiving correspondence in Mexico. Id. Fourth, the Court will not

2

order Defendant to conduct a deposition by video or questions, as Defendant has submitted a lengthy

3

declaration to the Court regarding the difficulty in obtaining such a deposition. See Def. Resp. Decl.

4

Hung, Doc. 67-1. Finally, Defendant moves to take Plaintiff’s deposition following the motion for

5

summary judgment, if necessary. See Def. Resp. at 1-3, Doc. 67. Defendant states that his motion

6

for summary judgment will be based on Plaintiff’s alleged admission of guilty in the Rules Violation

7

Report and his unsuccessful petition for writ of habeas corpus, based on allegations of due process

8

for the same hearing at issue in this case. Id. at 3.

9

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to serve Defendant by CM/ECF is GRANTED;

11

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to order Defendant to depose Plaintiff by written questions or

12

video in Mexico is DENIED;

13

3.

14

Defendant’s motion to depose Plaintiff, if necessary, after the Court decides the
motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;

15

4.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED;

16

5.

Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadline is

17

DENIED; and

18

6.

19

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to respond to any motion for summary
judgment is DENIED, as premature.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:
7j8cce

January 2, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3