Bishop v. Lopez, et al.

Filing 86

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Objections To Defendants' Motion To Extend Time To Respond To Plaintiff's Discovery Requests (ECF No. 82 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/1/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ROBERT BISHOP,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
RAUL LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00273-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY
REQUESTS
[ECF No. 82]

14

15
16

Plaintiff Robert Bishop is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

17

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s objections to Defendants’ request for an extension

18

of time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, filed September 25, 2015. Plaintiff contends that

19

Defendants’ counsel made misleading statements to the Court in the request for such extension. (ECF

20

No. 82.) Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on September 30, 2015. (ECF No. 84.)

21

Defendants filed the motion for extension of time on September 10, 2015, and the Court

22

granted Defendants’ motion on September 11, 2015, with further clarification on September 15, 2015.

23

(ECF Nos. 69, 70, 74.)

24

In his objections, Plaintiff contends that “Defense Counsel Kelly A. Samson has not made her

25

request in good faith and that it is for purposes of delay and/or some other improper purpose.” (ECF

26

No. 82 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that defense counsel declared that she provided 1,672 pages of

27

documents, but that he had only been provided 315 pages of documents. (ECF No. 82.) Plaintiff

28
1

1

states that he attempted to contact counsel regarding the incomplete discovery responses but received

2

no response. (Id.)

3

Defense counsel declares that in response to Plaintiff’s objections, she sent a letter to Plaintiff

4

explaining that while she received his letter indicating that he received incomplete discovery, she had

5

assumed he was referring to the initial printing error in her office where she had to send three of the

6

exhibits in separate mailing. (ECF No. 84, attached letter, dated September 28, 2015, and mailed on

7

September 30, 2015.) Counsel further declares that on September 30, 2015, she served an additional

8

set of Defendants’ document production to ensure that Plaintiff received all 1.672 pages referenced in

9

her declaration. (ECF No. 84, Kelly A. Samson Decl. ¶ 8.) Counsel states “Plaintiff should have in

10

his possession 39 pages attached as Exhibit 1, 15 pages attached as Exhibit 2, 56 pages attached as

11

Exhibit 3, 44 pages attached as Exhibit 4, 1,339 pages attached as Exhibit 5, 1 page attached as Exhibit

12

6, 9 pages attached as Exhibit 7, 9 pages attached as Exhibit 8, 66 pages attached as Exhibit 9, and 94

13

pages attached as Exhibit 10. If he is missing any of the above mentioned pages, he should send me a

14

letter.” (Id.)
Based on the representations made by defense counsel Kelly A. Samson, Plaintiff’s objections

15
16

to Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to respond to his discovery requests is DENIED.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

20

October 1, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2