Sullivan v. Biter et al

Filing 70

ORDER Directing Defendant to File a Response to 69 Plaintiff's Motion for a Third Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Deposition and Discovery Responses signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/23/2019. Response due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
M. D. BITER,
Defendant.

16

Case No. 1:15-cv-00243-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE
A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S
DEPOSITION AND DISCOVERY
RESPONSES
(ECF No. 69)

17
18
19

Plaintiff Michael J. Sullivan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.

20

On April 18, 2019, Defendant M. D. Biter filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition

21

and discovery responses. (ECF No. 62.) On May 15, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty-day

22

extension of time to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel deposition and discovery

23

responses. (ECF No. 65.) On June 18, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff a second thirty-day

24

extension of time to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel deposition and discovery

25

responses. (ECF No. 67.)

26

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a third thirty-day extension of time to

27

file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and discovery responses,

28

filed on July 19, 2019. (ECF No. 69.) Plaintiff asserts that he needs additional time to prepare and
1

1

file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel because he is no longer being provided with

2

any medically necessary pain medications and, as such, he is in a constant state of extreme pain,

3

and because he has had ongoing problems gaining access to the law library.

4

In this case, the Court finds that it is appropriate to require Defendant to file a response to

5

Plaintiff’s motion for a third extension of time. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that,

6

within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order, Defendant shall file a response to

7

Plaintiff’s motion for a third extension of time, (ECF No. 69). After Defendant’s response is filed,

8

the matter will be deemed submitted for decision. Local Rule 230(l).

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 23, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2