Goolsby v. Carrasco et al

Filing 57

ORDER DENYING 56 Motion to Amend Interrogatory Number Nine and Renew Motion to Compel, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 07/19/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS GOOLSBY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 1:09-cv-01650 JLT (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND INTERROGATORY NUMBER NINE AND RENEW MOTION TO COMPEL vs. M. CARRASCO, et al., 15 (Doc. 56) Defendants. 16 / 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s July 15, 2011 motion to amend interrogatory number 9 19 and renew his motion to compel. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On January 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery responses. (Doc. 45.) Among 22 other things, Plaintiff requested that Defendant Gonzales be ordered to provide a complete response to 23 interrogatory number 9. (Id. at 6.) Interrogatory number 9 provides: “State the most time in any week 24 between [J]anuary 2008 to [J]anuary 2010 that IEM inmates received at yard at IV B shu? State the 25 same for 5 block IV A yard?” (Id.) 26 In its July 5, 2011 ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for 27 a further response to interrogatory number 9. (See Doc. 53 at 5-6.) The Court agreed with Defendant 28 that the interrogatory was overbroad because the amount of yard time other inmates received between 1 1 January 2008 and January 2010 was not on-point with Plaintiff’s claim that he himself was deprived of 2 adequate out-of-cell exercise time during that time period. (Id. at 6.) 3 In response, on July 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to amend interrogatory number 4 9 and to renew his motion to compel. (Doc. 56.) Plaintiff wishes to amend his interrogatory to state the 5 following: “State the most time Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby F-19778 received out-of-cell exercise in an 6 IEM cage in a one week time period from January 2008 to January 2010, any week in between those 7 dates and applies to any building Plaintiff was in during the above time period.” (Id. at 6.) 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 As an initial matter, the deadline for conducting discovery passed long ago. Pursuant to the 10 discovery and scheduling order in this case, discovery concluded on November 30, 2010.1 (Doc. 20.) 11 Because Plaintiff has not shown good cause to amend the scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil 12 Procedure 16(b), his belated attempt to amend his discovery requests and to compel a response from 13 Defendant must be denied. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609-10 (9th Cir. 14 1992) (good cause to amend a scheduling order requires the moving party to demonstrate that despite 15 its diligence it was unable to adhere to the court’s deadlines). 16 Further, allowing Plaintiff to amend interrogatory number 9 would be superfluous. In its July 17 5, 2011 ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for the production 18 of documents number 8, which seeks documents indicating the amount of out-of-cell exercise Plaintiff 19 received during all times relevant to this action. (Doc. 53 at 11.) Any information obtained through this 20 discovery request would encompass any information Plaintiff might obtain by amending interrogatory 21 number 9. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 1 By order filed December 15, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff until January 16, 2011, to file any motion to compel he wished to pursue. (Doc. 44.) 2 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, for all the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 3 July 15, 2011 motion to amend interrogatory 9 and renew his motion to compel (Doc. 56) is DENIED. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: 7 July 19, 2011 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?