McNeal v. Evert, et al

Filing 275

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 10/11/16 ORDERING that Plaintiff's discovery requests 262 , 263 , 264 , 265 , 266 , 267 , 268 , 269 , 270 , 271 are DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

VERNON WAYNE MCNEAL,

10
11
12
13
14

No. 2:05-cv-00441-GEB-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY MOTIONS

F. LECKIE; A ERVIN; R.
CHATHAM, substituted party
for C. CHATHAM, deceased; and
D. VAN LEER;
Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff filed three discovery motions on March 31,

18

2016 (ECF Nos. 262, 263 and 264); a discovery motion on April 1,

19

2016 (ECF No. 265); an April 8, 2016 objection which contains

20

discovery requests (ECF No. 266); an April 14, 2016 discovery

21

motion

22

photographs) (ECF No. 267); and four discovery motions on April

23

22, 2016 (ECF Nos. 268, 269, 270 and 271).

(characterized

However,

24

as

by

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

was

as

a

informed

motion

in

the

to

amend

Pretrial

25

Order filed on February 24, 2015, "[d]iscovery [is] closed [and]

26

Plaintiff has not provided the court with any reason why he did

27

not timely pursue the requested information [before discovery

28

closed]."

(Pretrial Order 19:16-18, ECF No. 180.)
1

The Pretrial

1

Order states “[i]f no objections are made [within 30 days], the

2

Pretrial Order will become final without further order of the

3

court.”

4

Plaintiff filed objections to certain portions of the Pretrial

5

Order, the objections to the undisputed facts section of the

6

order are overruled and Plaintiff’s remaining objections concern

7

matters that fail to prevent the Pretrial Order from becoming

8

final.

9

filed May 22, 2015 and June 1, 2015.

(Pretrial

Order

21:21–22,

ECF

No.

180.)

Although

Further, the Pretrial Order was supplemented by Orders
(ECF Nos. 206 and 210.)

10

Therefore, Plaintiff's discovery requests are untimely

11

since discovery is closed and Plaintiff has not shown that the

12

date by which discovery was to have been completed should be

13

modified to prevent manifest injustice.

14

discovery requests filed March 31, 2016 (ECF Nos. 262, 263 and

15

264) are DENIED; Plaintiff’s discovery request filed April 1,

16

2016 (ECF No. 265) is DENIED; Plaintiff’s discovery request filed

17

April 8, 2016 (ECF No. 266) is DENIED; Plaintiff’s discovery

18

request

19

Plaintiff’s discovery requests filed April 22, 2016 (ECF Nos.

20

268, 269, 270 and 271) are DENIED.

21
22

filed

April

14,

2016

(ECF

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 11, 2016

23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

No.

267)

is

DENIED;

and