York v. Stewart et al
Filing
103
ORDER Requiring Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff's 102 Motion to Subpoena Non-Parties for Documents and Further Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 05/04/2020. Twenty-One Day Deadline. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
REGINALD RAY YORK,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
G. GARCIA, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
Case No. 1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
SUBPOENA NON-PARTIES FOR
DOCUMENTS AND FURTHER
DISCOVERY
(ECF No. 102)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
14
15
Plaintiff Reginald Ray York (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
16
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is currently set for a jury trial
17
commencing November 3, 2020 before District Judge Dale A. Drozd.
18
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion to subpoena non-parties for
19
documents and further discovery, filed April 30, 2020. (ECF No. 102.) The Court finds it
20
appropriate to obtain a response from Defendants regarding the motion. Accordingly, Defendants
21
shall file a response to Plaintiff’s motion within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of
22
this order. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, is due within seven (7) days from the date of service of
23
Defendants’ response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
26
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
May 4, 2020
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?