Madden v. Hicks et al

Filing 69

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 66 Second Request for Extension of Time to Serve Plaintiff's With Their Discovery Responses, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/12/2023. Defendants' Discovery Responses Due: September 15, 2023. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MICHAEL MADDEN, Successor-inInterest to Ryan P. Madden, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

v.
HICKS, et al.,

Case No. 1:18-cv-00255-ADA-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO SERVE PLAINTIFFS WITH THEIR
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
(ECF No. 66)

Defendants.

Defendants’ Discovery Responses Due:
September 15, 2023

17
18

Plaintiffs Michael Madden and Kathleen “Kathy” Madden (“Plaintiffs”), as Successors-in-

19

Interest to Ryan P. Madden, are proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

20

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Hicks for excessive force

21

and assault and battery claims, and against Defendants Silva and Hicks for California Bane Act

22

and retaliation claims.

23

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ request for a second twenty-one-day extension

24

of time, up to and including September 8, 2023, to respond to Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for

25

production of documents to Defendants Silva and Hicks. (ECF No. 66.) Defendants have

26

completed their responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions and interrogatories, and

27

anticipated timely serving those responses on Plaintiffs by the end of the day on August 18, 2023.

28

Defendants also substantially completed their responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for production of
1

1

documents. However, in order to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents,

2

Defendants requested and recently received approximately 36,000 emails from CDCR, and

3

Defendants’ counsel requires additional time to review each of these emails in order to determine

4

how many are responsive and to redact any confidential information and/or assert any necessary

5

objections. Defendants therefore request an extension of time, up to and including September 8,

6

2023, to serve Plaintiffs with their written discovery responses. (Id.) Defendants did not attempt

7

to contact Plaintiffs before submitting their request.

8
9
10
11

Plaintiffs did not file an opposition or otherwise respond to Defendants’ motion, and the
deadline to do so has now expired. Accordingly, the Court construes the motion as unopposed
and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
Having considered the request, and in light of Plaintiffs’ apparent non-opposition, the

12

Court finds good cause to extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery

13

requests, specifically Plaintiffs’ First Sets of Requests for Production of Documents. As the

14

requested deadline of September 8, 2023 has already expired, the Court finds it appropriate to

15

extend the deadline until September 15, 2023 to allow Defendants to serve the remainder of their

16

responses, if they have not already done so. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs will not be

17

prejudiced by the brief extension of time granted here, as responses will still be received well

18

before the deadline for completion of all discovery.

19
20
21
22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants’ second request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery
requests, (ECF No. 68), as described above, is GRANTED; and
2. Defendants’ responses shall be served on Plaintiffs on or before September 15, 2023.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 12, 2023

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2