Rapalo v. Lopez, et al.

Filing 45

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 44 Application for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Discovery Requests, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/19/15. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WALTER RAPALO,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

S. LOPEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01695-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY
REQUESTS
(ECF No. 44)

17
18

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

19

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants

20

Lopez, Schaffer and Manasrah for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the

21

Eighth Amendment. The current discovery deadline is February 12, 2015, and the dispositive motion

22

deadline is April 16, 2015. (ECF No. 42.)

23

On December 18, 2014, Defendants filed an application for an extension of time to respond to

24

Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendants explain that Plaintiff served counsel with discovery

25

requests, including two sets of requests for admissions, two requests for production of documents and

26

six sets of interrogatories. The proof of service was dated November 9, 2014, but the postmark on the

27

envelope was December 11, 2014. Counsel for defendants received the discovery requests on

28

December 15, 2014. Defendants indicate that there may be a dispute regarding the due date of
1

1

discovery responses because of the conflicting proof of service and postmark. Defendants therefore

2

request an extension of time to February 2, 2015, to resolve any ambiguity and to allow for counsel to

3

speak with defendants, obtain the requested discovery documents and prepare responses. (ECF No.

4

44.)

5

Although Defendants failed to provide the Court with any supporting documentation, such as a

6

declaration, copy of Plaintiff’s proof of service or a copy of the postmarked envelope, the Court will

7

accept Defendants’ representation that counsel did not receive the discovery requests until December

8

15, 2014. Given the date of receipt, the Court finds good cause to extend the deadline for Defendants

9

to submit their discovery responses. Accordingly, Defendants’ application for an extension of time to

10

respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests is GRANTED. Defendants’ responses and production of

11

documents shall be served on or before February 2, 2015.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 19, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2