Zuniga v. Jordan et al

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 31 Motion for a Subpoena Duces Tecum and 32 Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 6/27/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

LARRY ZUNIGA,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01208-AWI-SMS PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND MOTION
TO COMPEL

v.
CHRIS JORDAN, et al.,

13

(ECF Nos. 31, 32)

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Larry Zuniga (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

16

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Discovery in this action opened on April 29,

17

2010. Plaintiff was granted two extensions of time to conduct discovery. On April 5, 2011, Plaintiff

18

filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum, and on May 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel

19

further discovery. (ECF Nos. 31, 32.)

20

I.

Motion to Compel

21

Plaintiff states that Defendants have failed to produce exculpatory evidence.1 Initially, the

22

Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally deficient as he failed to include a copy of

23

Plaintiff’s discovery requests that are at issue, a copy of Defendant’s responses to the discovery

24

request, and an explanation of why Defendants objections are not justified.

25

Pursuant to the amended discovery and scheduling order, issued March 7, 2011, the deadline

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff appears to be attempting to apply criminal discovery rules to this civil action. Plaintiff is advised
that this is a civil action and discovery is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is directed to
the discovery and scheduling order, filed April 29, 2010. (ECF No. 21.)

1

1

for conducting discovery in this action was extended to April 29, 2011. In that order Plaintiff was

2

advised that no further extensions of time would be granted to conduct discovery. Plaintiff was

3

advised in the discovery and scheduling order, issued April 29, 2010, that all discovery must be

4

completed and all motions to compel must be filed by the discovery cutoff date. Plaintiff did not file

5

his motion to compel discovery until May 11, 2011, therefore, his motion to compel further

6

discovery shall be denied as untimely.

7

II.

Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum

8

As previously discussed, Plaintiff was informed that all discovery must be completed by the

9

discovery cutoff date. Plaintiff did not file his motion for a subpoena duces tecum with enough time

10

to allow for objections by the opposing party, the subpoenas to be served by the United States

11

Marshal, and documents to be received by Plaintiff prior to the cutoff date of April 29, 2011.

12

Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum was untimely and shall be denied.

13

III.

Order

14

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum,

15

filed April 5, 2011, and Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed May 11, 2011, are DENIED as

16

UNTIMELY.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:
icido3

June 27, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2