Harper v. Costa et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/11/09 ORDERING that defendants motion for an extension of time in which to respond to plaintiffs discovery requests 46 is GRANTED in that all discovery is stayed until the district judge rul es on the pending findings and recommendations; Plaintiffs motions for extensions of time in which to conduct discovery 42 and 43 are DENIED without prejudice; Plaintiffs motions to conduct discovery before the discovery conference 40 and 41 are DENIED; and Plaintiffs motion for a protective order 44 is DENIED.(Dillon, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. COSTA, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 24, 2008, this court granted defendants' motion for an extension of time in which to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests and in essence stayed discovery until after the resolution of the pending motion to dismiss (docket no. 39). The court also warned plaintiff not to file his discovery requests with the court (docket no. 38). Defendants have now filed a second request for an extension of time in which to respond to plaintiff's latest requests for discovery (docket no. 46). Counsel explains, correctly, that plaintiff has filed two additional sets of requests for production of documents despite the court's order forbidding him to do so. Plaintiff also has filed motions for an extension of time in which to conduct discovery (docket nos. 42 & 43) and two requests for permission to conduct discovery before the discovery conference (Docket Nos. 40 & 41). Given the recent findings and 1 ORDER DANIEL HARPER, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2148 JAM KJM P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

recommendations, now pending before the district judge, all discovery of any kind will be stayed. The discovery plaintiff has filed with the court will be disregarded. Finally, plaintiff has filed a bizarre motion for a protective order, seeking relief from "numerous depositions scheduled . . . by Daniel Harper" because "the examination at these depositions . . . is intended solely to annoy, embarrass and oppress Daniel Harper and its agents and employees" (docket No. 44 at 1). This motion, which the court finds incomprehensible, will be denied. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' motion for an extension of time in which to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests (docket no. 46) is granted in that all discovery is stayed until the district judge rules on the pending findings and recommendations; if they are not adopted, a discovery schedule will issue; 2. Plaintiff's motions for extensions of time in which to conduct discovery (docket nos. 42 & 43) are denied without prejudice; 3. Plaintiff's motions to conduct discovery before the discovery conference (docket nos. 40 & 41) are denied; and 4. Plaintiff's motion for a protective order (docket no. 44) is denied. DATED: February 11, 2009.

2 harp2148.staydsc

2