Savage v. Hubbard et al

Filing 66

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 12/22/09 ORDERING that within 10 days defendants Sabin, Johns, Shelton and Borbe shall show cause in writing why their default should not be entered as a sanction for their failure to respond to the amended complaint as required by this courts 2/20/09 order; Defendants 40 motion for a protective order is GRANTED nunc pro tunc to 3/11/09; The protective order is lifted as to all defendants except defendants Hubbard and Grannis as of the date of this order; Defendants are granted 45 days to respond to plaintiffs 2/9/09 discovery requests; and plaintiffs 46 motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
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 These four defendants responded to plaintiff's original complaint by filing a motion to dismiss, but they have not responded to the amended complaint as required by this court's February 20, 2009 order. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BOB SAVAGE, Plaintiff, vs. SUZAN HUBBARD, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action is proceeding on claims against twelve defendants named in plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed January 22, 2009. Eight of the named defendants have responded to plaintiff's amended complaint by filing motions to dismiss. The remaining four defendants, Dr. Sabin, Sergeant Johns, Officer Shelton and Officer Borbe, have not responded to the amended complaint as required by this court's February 20, 2009 order.1 Accordingly, these four defendants will be ordered to show cause in writing why their default should not be entered as a sanction for their failure to comply with the court's February 20, 2009 order. ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE No. 2:08-cv-1346-LKK-JFM (PC) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 On March 11, 2009, defendants filed a motion for a protective order, seeking relief from responding to any discovery propounded by plaintiff pending ruling on the motion to dismiss filed by seven defendants in response to the amended complaint and until a discovery order has been issued in this action. On March 23, 2009, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motion together with a motion to compel responses to discovery requests served by plaintiff on February 9, 2009. After review of the record, and good cause appearing, defendants' motion for protective order will be granted nunc pro tunc to March 11, 2009. The protective order will be lifted as to all defendants except defendants Hubbard and Grannis as of the date of this order. All defendants except defendants Hubbard and Grannis will be granted a period of forty-five days to respond to the discovery requests propounded by plaintiff on February 9, 2009. Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to his February 9, 2009 discovery requests will be denied without prejudice. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Within ten days from the date of this order defendants Sabin, Johns, Shelton and Borbe shall show cause in writing why their default should not be entered as a sanction for their failure to respond to the amended complaint as required by this court's February 20, 2009 order; 2. Defendants' March 11, 2009 motion for a protective order is granted nunc pro tunc to March 11, 2009; 3. The protective order is lifted as to all defendants except defendants Hubbard and Grannis as of the date of this order; 22 ///// 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 2 1 4. Defendants are granted a period of forty-five days from the date of this order in 2 which to respond to plaintiff's February 9, 2009 discovery requests; and 3 5. Plaintiff's March 23, 2009 motion to compel is denied without prejudice. 4 DATED: December 22, 2009. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 12 sava 1 3 4 6 .o2

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?