Kietty v. Walker et al
Filing
42
ORDER DENYING 36 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/2/2015. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HUSSEIN ALI KIETTY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
A. WALKER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Case No.: 1:13-cv-00312-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL
[ECF No. 36]
Plaintiff Hussein Ali Kietty is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Defendants filed an opposition
19
20
on May 15, 2015. The motion is deemed submitted to the Court for review pursuant to Local Rule
21
230(l).
22
23
24
Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to respond to his request for interrogatories sent on
February 2, 2015.
Pursuant to the Court’s June 2, 2014, discovery and scheduling order, the deadline for
25
completion of all discovery, including motions to compel, was set for February 2, 2015. (ECF No.
26
16.) Pursuant to this order, responses to written discovery requests are due forty-five days after the
27
request is first served. (Id.) In this instance, the last day to serve discovery requests was December
28
19, 2014, to allow for the forty-five day response period. (Id.)
1
1
Although Plaintiff requested an extension of the discovery deadline, the request was denied on
2
the basis that Plaintiff failed to present good cause for such extension. (ECF Nos. 32, 33.) Therefore,
3
discovery concluded on February 2, 2015. Plaintiff did not propound his discovery in a timely manner
4
by following the procedure as outlined in the Court’s June 2, 2014, order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
5
discovery request was untimely, and the motion to compel must be DENIED.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated:
9
June 2, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?