Sahibi v. Gonzales. et al.

Filing 84

ORDER DEEMING Defendants' Motion to Compel WITHDRAWN 63 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/6/17. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

OUSSAMA SAHIBI,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

CASE No. 1:15-cv-01581-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER
DEEMING
DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL WITHDRAWN

v.
(ECF NO. 63)
BORJAS GONZALES, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s

19

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Brandon Cope, Borjas

20

Gonzales, Mario Lozano, Howard Smith, and Stan, and on a Fourteenth Amendment

21

due process claim against Defendant Crounse.

22

On November 3, 2016, Defendants Cope, Gonzales, Lozano, and Stan filed a

23

motion to compel, stating that Plaintiff had failed to respond to discovery requests. (ECF

24

No. 63.)

25

Plaintiff did not file an opposition. However, on November 22, 2016 and

26

November 28, 2016, he filed motions seeking an extension of time to respond to

27

Defendants’ discovery requests. (ECF Nos. 67, 68.) Plaintiff stated that the requests

28
1

1

required him to review his medical records and, although he had sought permission to do

2

so, such opportunity had not been afforded him.

3

The Court set the matter for a telephonic discovery dispute conference. (ECF No.

4

70.) In documents submitted in preparation for the conference, Defendants noted

5

Plaintiff’s contention that his only responsive documents are CDCR medical records he

6

has not been allowed to review. On that basis, they asked to withdraw their motion to

7

compel, provided that Plaintiff be prohibited from presenting any evidence outside of the

8

CDCR medical records and not disclosed in the discovery process.

9

On January 13, 2017, the Court held the telephonic discovery dispute conference.

10

(ECF No. 81.) Therein, Defendants agreed to confer with Plaintiff’s Litigation Coordinator

11

to attempt to enable Plaintiff’s review of his medical file prior to January 20, 2017.

12

Plaintiff was ordered to advise the Court and counsel by January 30, 2017 if he intended

13

to present medical records not contained in his CDCR file. To date, Plaintiff has

14

submitted no such statement of intent.

15

Based on the foregoing, it appears that Plaintiff does not intend to present

16

medical records outside of those contained in his CDCR medical file. Accordingly,

17

Defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 63) is HEREBY DEEMED WITHDRAW

18

pursuant to Defendants’ request.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 6, 2017

/s/

22

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2