Le v. Chokatos et al

Filing 26

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 22 Motion to Compel; ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES : Discovery cut-off due 12/15/2014 and Dispositive Motions due 02/13/2015, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/17/14. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LOC PHAT LE,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 1:12-cv-00460 AWI DLB PC

v.
[ECF No. 22.]

13
14
15

JOHN CHOKATOS,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

16
17

Plaintiff Loc Phat Le (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 27, 2012. This
19 action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Chokatos (“Defendant”) for
20 violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
21

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel, filed on October 25, 2013.

22 Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion and it is submitted on the record. Local Rule 230(l).
23
24

DISCUSSION
On May 30, 2013, the Court issued a scheduling order opening discovery. The Court set

25 July 12, 2013, as the deadline for filing initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). The
26 deadline passed and Plaintiff did not provide his initial disclosures. On September 19, 2013,
27 Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter reminding him of the Court’s Scheduling Order requiring Plaintiff
28 to serve Defendant with his initial disclosures. [ECF No. 22, Motion to Compel, Marquez Dec.,

1 ¶2, Ex. A.] Defendant requested initial disclosures by September 30, 2013, or Defendant would
2 file a motion to compel. [Marquez Dec., ¶2.] Plaintiff did not provide his initial disclosures.
3

In addition, the Court set October 25, 2013, as the deadline for the completion of all

4 discovery. On September 19, 2013, Defendant served Plaintiff with interrogatories and a request
5 for the production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a), 34(a). [Marquez Dec., ¶4, Exs. B, C.]
6 Pursuant to the scheduling order, Plaintiff had thirty (30) days within which to serve a response.
7 [ECF No. 18.] Plaintiff did not serve a response to Defendant’s discovery requests.

[Marquez

8 Dec., ¶4.]
9

Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to provide initial disclosures and respond to

10 his interrogatories and request for the production of documents. Fed R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) provides:
11 “On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling
12 disclosure. . . [T]he motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred
13 or attempted to confer with the person failing to make disclosure . . . in an effort to obtain it
14 without court action.” Plaintiff was obligated to provide initial disclosures and to respond to
15 Defendant’s interrogatories and request for the production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b),
16 34(b)(2). Plaintiff failed to serve his initial disclosures or his responses to the discovery requests,
17 and he failed to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel. Defendant certifies that he
18 has in good faith attempted to confer with Plaintiff in an attempt to obtain disclosures without
19 court action.
20
21

ORDER
For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED. IT IS

22 HEREBY ORDERED that:
23

1.

Plaintiff SHALL serve his initial disclosures and his responses to Defendant’s

24

interrogatories and request for production of documents on Defendant within thirty

25

(30) days of the date of this order.

26

compliance with the Court within this time confirming that disclosures have been

27

made;

28

2.

The deadlines are extended as follows:
2

Plaintiff SHALL also file a notice of

1

Discovery cut-off:

2

Dispositive Motions: February 13, 2015

3

December 15, 2014

Failure to comply with this order WILL result in further sanctions, including the

4 possible dismissal of this action.
5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

September 17, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3