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)

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