Estrada v. Macias et al

Filing 54

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery as Moot 44 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/12/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID ESTRADA,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
TERESA MACIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01292-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AS MOOT
[ECF No. 44]

Plaintiff David Estrada is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed July 11, 2016. Defendants

20

filed an opposition on July 27, 2016. Plaintiff did not file a reply, and therefore the motion is deemed

21

submitted for review without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l).

22

I.

23

DISCUSSION

24

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of

25

confinement.

As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would

26

otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to

27

involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ.

28

P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 34, Discovery and Scheduling Order, &4. However, this
1

1

is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The discovery process is subject

2

to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of discovery responsibilities cannot be

3

condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation

4

marks and citation omitted). “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is

5

relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the

6

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to

7

relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues,

8

and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed R.

9

Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

10

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel

11

bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV

12

S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at

13

*3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis

14

v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008).

15

This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the

16

motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why

17

the responding party=s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack,

18

2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4.

19

Pursuant to the discovery and scheduling order, the deadline for discovery does not expire until

20

January 4, 2017. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff submits that on May 18, 2016, he served Defendant Brad

21

Vikjord with a request for production of documents, set one. Defendant’s response was due on or

22

before July 5, 2016. On June 12, 2016, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel

23

requesting a telephone conference to discuss expert witnesses for medical evaluations of Plaintiff,

24

witness depositions, along with written interrogatories to non-Defendants. On June 29, 2016, defense

25

counsel sent Plaintiff a meet a confer letter scheduled for the week of July 11, 2016. Plaintiff also

26

received Defendant’s first request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery, dated

27

June 29, 2016. Plaintiff contends that he should have been provided fourteen day notice in advance of

28

Defendant’s request for an extension of time to respond to discovery requests. Plaintiff claims that
2

1

Defendant Vikjord is intentionally delaying Plaintiff from conducting discovery because without his

2

responses to discovery Plaintiff will be unable to further investigate his case.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel must be denied. On July 7, 2016, on the basis of good cause, the

3
4

Court granted Defendants’ to extend the time to August 15, 2016, to respond to Plaintiff’s pending

5

discovery requests. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff’s motion to compel is moot, in light of the fact that the

6

Court granted Defendants until August 15, 2016, to provide responses to Plaintiff’s discovery. (Id.)

7

Furthermore, Defendants are not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this Court’s local

8

rules to provide advance notice of their court filings.

9

II.

10

ORDER

11

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed July 11, 2016, is DENIED as

12

MOOT.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:

16

August 12, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3