Ortiz v. Garza

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; DISREGARDING Plaintiff's Request for an Extension of Time to Produce "Exculpatory Evidence," and STRIKING Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Answer 26 , 27 , 29 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/28/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

JOSE A. ORTIZ,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

Case No. 1:15-cv-01370-DAD-JLT (PC)

GARZA,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL; DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO
PRODUCE “EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE;” and
STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER

Defendant.

15

(Docs. 26, 27, 29)

16
On August 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant to produce a copy of

17
18
19
20
21

the incident report pertaining to the incident Plaintiff challenges in this action. (Doc. 26.)
However, the Court did not issue the Discovery and Scheduling Order until September 20, 2016.
(Doc. 30.) Thus, discovery was not permitted to begin until after that date and, as a result, the
motion to compel is procedurally improper.
On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff sought an extension of time “to produce “exculpatory

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

evidence.” (Doc. 27.) There are no current deadlines for Plaintiff to file any documents with the
court. Further, as stated in the First Informational Order (Doc. 3, p. 3), the Court will not serve as
a repository for evidence. Plaintiff may not file evidence (prison, disciplinary or medical
records, witness affidavits, etc.) unless in support of a properly noticed motion or upon the
Court’s order. (Id.) Plaintiff is reminded that evidence improperly submitted will be stricken.
(Id.)

1

1

On August 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Response” to Defendant’s Answer. (Doc. 29.)

2

However, Plaintiff does not have a right to file a response to Defendant’s Answer under the Local

3

Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiff did not obtain leave of court to do so.

4

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

5

1.

6
7
8
9
10

Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents from Defendant, filed on

August 18, 2016 (Doc. 26), is DENIED ;
2.

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file evidence, filed on August 22,

2016 (Doc. 27), is DISREGARDED;
3.

Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Answer, filed on August 24, 2016 (Doc. 29), is

STRICKEN from the record.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 28, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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