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)

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