(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)
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?