Flynn v. Canlas, et al.

Filing 45

ORDER Striking Plaintiff's 43 Request for Admission and Declaration for Additional Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/17/18. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID FLYNN, 12 Case No. 1:16-cv-01052-AWI-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 CANLAS, et al, 15 ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION AND DECLARATION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY (ECF No. 43) Defendants. 16 Plaintiff David Flynn (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 17 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 19 20 Procedure 37(a)(3)(B). (ECF No. 39.) On July 11, 2018, the Court issued an order directing the 21 parties to meet and confer regarding the discovery dispute, and to file a joint statement following 22 the parties’ conference. The Court further stayed briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF 23 No. 40.) On August 9, 2018, the parties filed a joint statement indicating that the motion to 24 compel had been resolved in full, and Defendant Maddox agreed to produce full responses to the 25 discovery requests at issue by August 24, 2018. (ECF No. 41.) The Court agreed to maintain 26 Plaintiff’s motion to compel on the docket pending Defendant’s provision of responses to the 27 outstanding requests. (ECF No. 42.) 28 /// 1 1 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission and Declaration for 2 Additional Discovery, filed August 16, 2018. (ECF No. 43.) It appears Plaintiff intended to 3 serve the Requests for Admission on Defendant Maddox, although the attached declaration of 4 service indicates that the Requests were served only on the Clerk of the Court. (Id. at 7.) 5 Pursuant to Local Rule 250.4(c), requests for admission, responses, and proofs of service 6 thereof shall not be filed unless and until there is a proceeding in which the document or proof of 7 service is at issue. As Plaintiff has identified no issue which requires the Court’s intervention, the 8 filing is not appropriately before the Court. 9 To the extent Plaintiff intended this document to be filed as a motion, the Court notes that, 10 pursuant to the amended discovery and scheduling order, the deadline for completion of all 11 discovery was March 16, 2018. (ECF No. 24.) Though that deadline was later extended to July 12 6, 2018, the extension was limited only to the provision of responses to Plaintiff’s special 13 interrogatories to Defendant Maddox, Set One, and the filing of any related motion to 14 compel. (ECF No. 38.) Plaintiff’s filing fails to set forth good cause to re-open discovery in this 15 matter to allow service of additional discovery requests on Defendant Maddox. 16 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission and 17 Declaration for Additional Discovery, filed August 16, 2018 (ECF No. 43), is STRICKEN from 18 the record. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara August 17, 2018 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?