Tunstall v. Knowles, et al
Filing
142
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 5/2/11 ORDERING that 123 Motion is DENIED as moot; 127 Motion is DENIED; 136 Motion to modify the scheduling order is GRANTED; The deadline for filing dispositive motions in this action is extended to 4/29/11; Defendants 4/27/11 motion for summary judgment is deemed timely filed.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ROBERT TUNSTALL,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
vs.
MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
/
15
16
No. 2:08-cv-3176 WBS JFM (PC)
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to
17
42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 19, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for a court order requiring a
18
correctional counselor at California Medical Facility to permit him to review his deposition
19
transcript. By order filed February 10, 2011, defendants were directed to respond to that motion
20
within ten days. On February 16, 2011, defendants filed an opposition to the motion. With their
21
response, defendants present evidence that plaintiff has received the transcript, reviewed, and
22
sent changes back to the court reporting agency. See Declaration of Matthew W. Kubicek in
23
Support of Opposition to Motion for Court Order, at ¶ 2. Plaintiff’s motion is moot and will
24
therefore be denied.
25
On February 9, 2011, plaintiff filed a document styled as a motion for production
26
of documents. By this motion, plaintiff seeks expert testimony and documents from defendants
1
1
concerning issues related to the cause of plaintiff’s hearing impairment. To the extent that this
2
document is construed as a request for production of documents, it is improperly filed. Court
3
permission is not necessary for discovery requests and that neither discovery requests served on
4
an opposing party nor that party's responses should be filed until such time as a party becomes
5
dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
6
Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and
7
until, they are at issue. To the extent this document may be construed as a motion for a court
8
order requiring defendants to provide expert witnesses, as the court explained in its February 10,
9
2011 order, defendants do not have an obligation to provide expert witnesses for plaintiff. To the
10
extent that this document may be construed as a motion for a court order requiring production of
11
documents, plaintiff has made no showing that he previously served defendants with a proper
12
discovery request. For all of these reasons, plaintiff’s February 9, 2011 motion will be denied.
On April 5, 2011, defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order filed
13
14
in this action to extend the deadline for filing dispositive motions from April 8, 2011 to April 29,
15
2011. On April 27, 2011, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Good cause
16
appearing, defendants’ April 5, 2011 motion will be granted and defendants’ April 27, 2011
17
motion for summary judgment deemed timely filed. Defendants’ motion shall be briefed in
18
accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 230(l) and this court’s order filed March 11, 2009.
19
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
20
1. Plaintiff’s January 19, 2011 motion is denied as moot.
21
2. Plaintiff’s February 9, 2011 motion is denied.
22
3. Defendants’ April 5, 2011 motion to modify the scheduling order is granted.
23
4. The deadline for filing dispositive motions in this action is extended to April
24
29, 2011.
25
/////
26
/////
2
1
5. Defendants’ April 27, 2011 motion for summary judgment is deemed timely
2
filed. Said motion shall be briefed in accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 230(l) and
3
this court’s order filed March 11, 2009.
4
DATED: May 2, 2011.
5
6
7
8
9
12
tuns3176.o3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?