Estrada v. Tassey et al

Filing 166

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 152 153 158 159 Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/11/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID ESTRADA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GIPSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13cv00919 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
(Documents 152, 153, 158 and 159)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. Pursuant to
the Court’s screening order and Plaintiff’s notice of willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims,
this action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation of the
First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for violation of the
Eighth Amendment.

23
24
25
26

Discovery closed on December 15, 2014. The dispositive motion deadline is February 12,
2015.
On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and a related motion for sanctions. On
February 5, 2015, he filed another motion to compel and another motion for sanctions.

27
28
1

1
2
3

Defendants opposed the January 26, 2015, motion on February 10, 2015. As the discovery
requests at issue suffer from the same fatal flaw, the Court deems the matters suitable for decision
without further briefing pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

4
5
6
7
8

Pursuant to the July 17, 2014, Discovery and Scheduling Order, discovery must be served at
least thirty-days prior to the close of discovery. ECF No. 92, at 4. Here, however, the discovery at
issue in the January 16, 2015, motion was served less than thirty-days prior to the December 15, 2014,
close of discovery. According to the six discovery requests attached to the motion to compel, the
requests were served between November 17, 2014, and December 15, 2014.

9
10

Similarly, the discovery at issue in the February 5, 2015, motion was not served until
November 15, 2014.

11
12

Plaintiff’s motions are therefore DENIED because he did not timely serve the discovery at
issue.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

February 11, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2