Guzman v. Marshall et al

Filing 40

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 35 Motion to Compel, DIRECTING Plaintiff to File a Response to Discovery Requests Within Twenty Days, and GRANTING Extension of Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/19/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAFAEL GUZMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

JOHN MARSHALL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO COMPEL, DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
A RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS
WITHIN TWENTY DAYS, AND GRANTING
EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY AND
DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES
[ECF No. 35]

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding against Defendants Snyder and Frazier for failure to protect in

19
20

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00828-LJO-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff Rafael Guzman is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On January 20, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff did not

21
22

file an opposition within twenty-one days, and the motion is deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule

23

230(l).

24

I.

25

DISCUSSION

26

A.

27

Pursuant to Rule 37(a), a party propounding discovery may seek an order compelling

28

Motion to Compel

disclosure when an opposing party has failed to respond or has provided evasive or incomplete
1

1

responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). “It is well established that a failure to object to discovery

2

request within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection.” Richmark Corp. v. Timber

3

Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154,

4

1160 (9th Cir. 1981)). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating “actual and substantial

5

prejudice” from the denial of discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)

6

(citations omitted).

7

On November 14, 2014, Defendants Frazier and Snyder served their discovery requests on

8

Plaintiff. (Angus Decl. Ex. A-C.) Pursuant to the discovery and scheduling order, Plaintiff’s

9

responses to the discovery requests were due on or before December 29, 2014. (ECF No. 23.) As of

10

the date of the filing of the motion to compel, Defendants have not received any responses to their

11

discovery requests. (Angus Decl. ¶ 5.)

12

Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to Defendants’ discovery requests or procure an extension

13

of time is a violation of Plaintiff’s discovery obligations. Accordingly, the Court will grant

14

Defendants’ motion to compel directing Plaintiff to provide complete responses-without objections-to

15

Defendants’ requests for discovery. See Richmark Corp., 959 F.2d at 1473 (quoting Davis, 650 F.2d

16

at 1160 (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required

17

constitutes a waiver of any objection.”)).

18

B.

19

Defendants seek an extension of the discovery deadline given that Plaintiff failed to respond to

20

their discovery requests within the discovery cut-off date. Defendants further “need additional time to

21

draft and file a further motion to compel, if necessary, and schedule and take Plaintiff’s deposition.”

22

Defendants therefore request an extension of forty-five days from the date of receipt of Plaintiff’s

23

discovery responses to take Plaintiff’s deposition and file a motion to compel.

24

Extension of Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadline

In addition, Defendants request an extension of time to file their dispositive motion. The

25

current dispositive motion deadline is set to expire on March 30, 2014. (ECF No. 23.) Defendants

26

reason that because they have not yet received Plaintiff’s responses to the discovery requests, they

27

have been unable to prepare their dispositive motion.

28
2

Accordingly, on the basis of good cause, the Court will extend the discovery and dispositive

1
2

motion deadlines in light of the instant motion to compel.

3

II.

4

ORDER

5

Based on the foregoing,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

Defendants’ motion to compel, filed January 20, 2014, is GRANTED;

8

2.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a
response to Defendants’ discovery requests;

9
10

3.

The discovery deadline is extended from January 19, 2015, to May 20, 2015; and

11

4.

The dispositive motion deadline is extended from March 30, 2015, to July 20, 2015.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

February 19, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3