Flynn v. Canlas, et al.

Filing 50

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 39 Motion to Compel as MOOT signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/28/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

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 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT CANLAS, et al., 15 (ECF No. 39) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff David Flynn (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was a prisoner at 19 the time this action was initiated. This action proceeds against Defendant Maddox for deliberate 20 indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 21 On July 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 37(a)(3)(B). (ECF No. 39.) On July 11, 2018, the Court issued an order directing the 23 parties to meet and confer regarding the discovery dispute, and to file a joint statement following 24 the parties’ conference. The Court further stayed briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF 25 No. 40.) On August 9, 2018, the parties filed a joint statement indicating that the motion to 26 compel had been resolved in full, and Defendant Maddox agreed to produce full responses to the 27 discovery requests at issue by August 24, 2018. (ECF No. 41.) The Court agreed to maintain 28 Plaintiff’s motion to compel on the docket pending Defendant’s provision of responses to the 1 1 2 outstanding requests. (ECF No. 42.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s further status report, filed August 27, 2018. (ECF 3 No. 49.) Plaintiff details his communications with defense counsel regarding Defendant 4 Maddox’s outstanding responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and has attached 5 the parties’ email correspondence. Plaintiff indicates that he received Defendant Maddox’s 6 responses by email on August 22, 2018. Plaintiff further contends that he believes Defendant 7 violated the Court’s meet and confer order by emailing Plaintiff, rather than telephoning or setting 8 up an in-person meeting. (Id.) 9 The Court declines to find that Defendant committed any violation of the Court’s order 10 regarding the meet and confer requirement. Defendant complied with the spirit of the order, and 11 made a good faith effort to communicate with Plaintiff to resolve this discovery dispute. Plaintiff 12 does not argue that he had difficulty communicating with defense counsel via email, or that the 13 meet and confer process was hindered by this method of communication. Further, as Plaintiff 14 indicates that he has received responses to his Special Interrogatories, which are the subject of his 15 pending motion to compel, the Court finds that any error on the part of Defendant in contacting 16 Plaintiff via email is harmless. As it appears the discovery dispute has been fully resolved, 17 Plaintiff’s motion to compel, (ECF No. 39), is HEREBY DENIED as moot. 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara August 28, 2018 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 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?