Randolph v. Nix et al

Filing 72

ORDER DENYING 64 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/11/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

COLIN M. RANDOLPH,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
(ECF No. 64)

v.
B. NIX, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

17

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against

18

Defendants Avery and Akano on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference

19

claim. (ECF No. 19.)
On June 9, 2014, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order, setting

20
21

February 9, 2015 as the discovery cut-off. (ECF No. 42.)

22

On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel answers to his second set of

23

interrogatories. (ECF No. 64.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 66.) Plaintiff filed

24

a reply. (ECF No. 69.) The matter is deemed submitted.

25

II.

DISCUSSION

26

Plaintiff’s motion states that he served interrogatories on Defendants on

27

approximately January 1, 2015, and received no response. (ECF No. 64.) He wrote to

28

1

defense counsel regarding the interrogatories on February 17, 2015, and again received

2

no response.
Defendants respond that both Plaintiff’s interrogatories and his motion to compel

3
4

are untimely under the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 66.)

5
6

In reply, Plaintiff disagrees that his interrogatories were untimely, and states that
he acted in good faith. (ECF No. 69.)

7

The discovery and scheduling order required that all discovery be completed by

8

February 9, 2015. (ECF No. 42.) It also required that parties respond to written discovery

9

requests within forty-five days after the request was first served. The parties were

10

advised to serve discovery requests “sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadline to

11

permit time for a response and time to prepare and file a motion to compel.” In order to

12

meet the February 9, 2015 deadline for the completion of discovery, all discovery

13

requests would need to have been served by December 26, 2014. Here, Plaintiff’s

14

interrogatories were served on approximately January 1, 2015. Accordingly, the

15

interrogatories were untimely. Defendants had no obligation to respond.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion to compel was filed after the discovery cut-off and

16
17

is, in itself, untimely.

18

III.

19
20
21
22

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 64) is HEREBY

DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 11, 2015

/s/

23

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2