(PC) Villery v. Crounse, et al.

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING 67 Motion to Compel as Untimely and DENYING 81 Motion to Strike as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/16/2021. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED M. VILLERY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 D. CROUNSE, et al., 15 Case No. 1:18-cv-01623-NONE-SKO (PC) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL AS UNTIMELY AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT (Docs. 67, 81) Defendants. 16 17 On September 9, 2019, the Court issued its first discovery and scheduling order, setting 18 the discovery cutoff date as February 9, 2020, including the deadline to file motions to compel. 19 (Doc. 23.) On December 4, 2019, the Court issued a second discovery and scheduling order, 20 setting the discovery cutoff date as May 4, 2020. (Doc. 32.) Thereafter, the Court extended the 21 discovery cutoff on several occasions. (Docs. 36, 40, 43, 54, 64.) The extended discovery 22 deadline, including the deadline to file motions to compel, was March 20, 2021. (Doc. 64.) 23 On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the production of documents. (Doc. 24 67.) Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on April 8, 2021, (Doc. 74), and Plaintiff filed a 25 reply on April 21, 2021, (Doc. 77).1 26 /// 27 1 28 Defendants filed a “Notice of Clarification” or sur-reply on April 27, 2021. (Doc. 78.) Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the sur-reply on June 11, 2021. (Doc. 81.) Because the Court does not consider the surreply in ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the Court will deny the motion to strike as moot. Plaintiff’s motion to compel and attached proof of service are dated March 22, 2021. 1 2 (Doc. 67 at 24, 25.) Thus, even when taking into account the prison mailbox rule, and assuming 3 Plaintiff submitted the motion to prison officials on the date it is signed, the motion is untimely.2 4 As described above, the discovery cutoff date has been extended numerous times since 5 discovery opened in September of 2019. In its last order granting an extension, the Court stated, 6 “[g]iven that discovery [has been] open for more than nine months past the initial cutoff date, the 7 Court does not find good cause to provide more than the limited extension set forth” in the order. 8 (Doc. 64 at 2.) For the same reasons, the Court does not find good cause to extend the cutoff sua 9 sponte and nunc pro tunc. Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of 10 11 documents, (Doc. 67), as untimely. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ 12 sur-reply (Doc. 81) as moot. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Sheila K. Oberto July 16, 2021 . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 In his reply, Plaintiff argues that the discovery deadline extended to March 22, 2021, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a). (Doc. 77 at 2.) However, the “time-computation provisions of subdivision (a) [of Rule 6] apply only when a time period must be computed. They do not apply when a fixed time to act is set.” InProcessOut, LLC v. World Tech Toys, Inc., No. CV SA-18-CA-0869-FB, 2019 WL 6048020, at *2 (W.D. Tex. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) advisory committee notes (2009)). Accordingly, the discovery deadline remained the specific calendar date set by the Court—March 20, 2021. 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?