Aleman v. North Kern State Prison, et al.

Filing 66

ORDER DENYING 62 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/19/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

Case No. 1:15-cv-01293-LJO-EPG (PC)

HECTOR ALEMAN,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

(ECF No. 62)

C/O K. ACOSTA., et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Hector Aleman (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

17

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on a failure

18

to protect claim against Defendants Rentieria, Ledesma, Nuno, Fierros, Montalvo, Acosta, and

19

Garcia. (ECF No. 15).

20
21
22

On January 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 62). Plaintiff asks the
Court to compel Defendants to respond to the following interrogatories:


and training?

23
24
25

Special Interrogatory No. 14: Is having “good observation” a part of your job



Special Interrogatory No. 6: Is having good observation a part of your job and
training.

26

Defendants object on the basis that the interrogatories are vague and ambiguous.

27

Defendants also object on the basis that the motion to compel was not brought within the period

28

for non-expert discovery, not to mention prior to the Court’s scheduled conference to discuss
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

discovery issues.
On June 16, 2017, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting inter alia a non-expert
discovery cut-off deadline as follows:
A discovery conference has been set for November 6, 2017... Up until four
weeks before the discovery conference, the parties may file a motion to compel
further discovery responses. … Unless there is a need for discovery prior to the
discovery conference, motions to compel will not be considered until the
discovery conference. Motions to compel will not be permitted after the
discovery conference absent good cause. The parties should be prepared to
address all discovery disputes at the discovery conference.
The deadline for the completion of all non-expert discovery is December 15,
2017. All non-expert discovery must be provided by this date, including
discovery compelled following the discovery conference.

11
12
13

(ECF No. 43 at 4-5.)
Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the Court held a telephonic Discovery and Status

14

Conference on November 6, 2017. (ECF No. 58.) During the conference, the Court discussed

15

discovery issues with the parties. Plaintiff appeared pro se for the hearing, and counsel

16

appeared on behalf of the Defendants. Plaintiff informed the Court during the conference that

17

he had no outstanding discovery issues in need of resolution. The non-expert discovery

18

deadline passed on December 15, 2017 without any party requesting an extension of time.

19
20
21

The Court will deny the motion to compel. It agrees with Defendants that the
interrogatories are vague and ambiguous regarding what is “good observation.”
Additionally, the Court will deny the motion to compel because it was not timely raised

22

with the Court. The Court recognizes that no response was due to his interrogatories at the time

23

of the November 6, 2017 conference. However, this does explain Plaintiff’s delay in serving

24

the interrogatories. The Scheduling Order made it clear that “Motions to compel will not be

25

permitted after the discovery conference absent good cause.” (Id.) Plaintiff has not attempted

26

establish good cause for his failure to timely file a motion to compel.

27

\\\

28

\\\
2

1

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 62) is denied.

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 19, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3