Manago v. Davey et al

Filing 60

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 59 Second Request for Extension of Time to Serve Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Request for Production of Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/16/16. Deadline: December 19, 2016. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STUART MANAGO,

12

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO SERVE RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
(ECF No. 59.)

vs.

14

1:16-cv-00399-LJO-GSA-PC

DAVEY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

DEADLINE: December 19, 2016

17
18

Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the

20

Complaint commencing this action on March 24, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds

21

with the First Amended Complaint filed on April 18, 2016, against defendants J. Acevedo, D.

22

Davey, A. Maxfield, E. Razo, M.V. Sexton, A. Valdez, and J. Vanderpoel (collectively,

23

“Defendants”), on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims. (ECF No. 22.) This case is

24

now in the discovery phase.

25

On November 14, 2016, Defendants filed a request for an extension of time to serve

26

discovery responses. (ECF No. 59.) Defense counsel declares that the discovery requests by

27

Plaintiff in this case are voluminous, seek information dating back to 1989, and require

28

speaking with each of the seven Defendants, as well as conducting an in-depth review of
1

1

Plaintiff’s lengthy C-File. (De La Torre-Fennell Decl., ECF No. 59 ¶6.) Defense counsel is

2

also examining documents to determine whether any of them are privileged and, if so, prepare a

3

privilege log and necessary supporting declarations. (Id.)

4
5

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants have been diligent in
responding to discovery, and their request for extension of time shall be granted.

6

Therefore, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

8
9

Defendants’ request for extension of time, filed on November 14, 2016, is
GRANTED; and

2.

On or before December 19, 2016, Defendants shall provide responses to
Plaintiff’s first set of request for production of documents.

10
11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 16, 2016

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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