Keeton v. Cox et al
Filing
52
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 04/19/11 denying 50 Motion for discovery. To the extent plaintiff seeks an extension of the 03/14/11 deadline for serving discovery requests, plaintiff's request is denied as he has not shown why his requests for discovery were not served before expiration of the deadline. (Plummer, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
TOMMY ROY KEETON,
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
No. CIV S-06-1094 GEB JFM (TEMP) P
Defendants.
ORDER
vs.
COX, et al.,
14
15
/
16
Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting permission to propound certain discovery
17
requests. However, plaintiff does not need a court order to engage in discovery. Therefore, his
18
motion (#50) is denied. To the extent plaintiff seeks an extension of the March 14, 2011
19
deadline for serving discovery requests, plaintiff’s request is denied as he has not shown why his
20
requests for discovery were not served before expiration of the deadline.
21
DATED: April 19, 2011.
22
23
24
25
26
kc
keet1094.dis
]]>
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?
