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
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?