Carr v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 73

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 71 Motion to Compel as MOOT signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/16/2020. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLAUDE CARR,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
TED PRUITT,
Defendant.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17-cv-01769-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL AS MOOT
(ECF No. 71)

Plaintiff Claude Carr is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding against Defendant Pruitt for deliberate indifference in violation of the

20

Eighth Amendment. The discovery and scheduling order issued in this case on May 23, 2019. (ECF

21

No. 30.) After an unsuccessful settlement conference, the Court issued an amended discovery and

22

scheduling order on September 4, 2019. (ECF No. 46.)

23

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed October 23, 2020. (ECF No.

24

71.) Defendant filed an opposition on November 13, 2020. (ECF No. 72.) The Court deems

25

Plaintiff’s motion suitable for review without the filing of a reply by Plaintiff. Local Rule 230(l).

26

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Pruitt to conduct his deposition within thirty days of the

27

Court’s order granting Defendant’s third motion to extend the discovery and dispositive motion

28

deadlines. (ECF No. 71 at 1, 3.)
1

Defendant submits that Plaintiff’s deposition was conducted on November 12, 2020. (ECF No.

1
2

71 at 2, Ex. A.) Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion to compel the taking of his deposition is now moot

3

and is denied on that basis.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:

7

November 16, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2