Nelson v. Murphy

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K Delaney on 08/11/11 ordering plaintiff's motion to reschedule discovery 38 is denied. Defendants' motion for an extension of time in which to file her pretrial statement 42 is granted. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this order in which to file a pretrial statement. Defendant shall file her pretrial statement no later than 14 days after plaintiff serves his pretrial statement. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

PATRICK OTIS NELSON,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
vs.

CIV S-09-0308 KJM CKD P

MURPHY,
Defendant.

14
15

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action under 42

16

U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion to reschedule discovery, effectively seeking an extension

17

of the discovery period. Defendant has filed a motion seeking an extension of time in which to

18

file a pretrial statement.

19

Plaintiff states that additional time for discovery is necessary because he has not

20

received defendant’s responses to his discovery requests. Defendant opposes the motion on the

21

ground that the discovery requests were untimely. Defendant points out that the court’s

22

discovery and scheduling order required that all discovery requests would be served no later than

23

sixty days before the discovery deadline, which in this case was February 4, 2010. See

24

Scheduling Order at 5 (Docket No. 26). Although it is not entirely clear from the motion, it

25

appears plaintiff served his requests sometime in January 2011. See Motion at 3 (Docket No.

26

38). Defendants refused to respond to the requests because they were served well after the sixty1

1

day cut-off set by the scheduling order. Id. He served his request to extend the discovery period

2

on February 10, 2011, but it was not filed until March 1.

3

Given the nature of plaintiff’s request and defendants’ reason for refusing to

4

answer them, the court construes plaintiff’s motion as one to compel defendants to respond to his

5

discovery requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Under the current scheduling order, any motion to

6

compel discovery should have been filed by February 4, 2011.

7

Plaintiff has not given the court good cause to compel defendant to respond to his

8

discovery requests. The court accepts plaintiff’s explanation that plaintiff’s assignment to

9

administrative segregation restricted his access to his legal materials and the prison law library.

10

However, by plaintiff’s own account, he could have sought an extension of the discovery

11

deadline well before it expired. His motion makes it clear that by mid-December 2010, he was

12

out of administrative segregation and had enough access to his materials to prosecute this case.

13

See Motion at 3. In fact, on December 27, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time

14

in which to answer defendant’s discovery requests, which the court granted. See Docket Nos. 33

15

and 36. Plaintiff has made no showing why he could not have requested an extension for

16

propounding his own requests at the same time. Therefore his motion will be denied.1

17

The scheduling order also requires plaintiff to have filed his pretrial statement no

18

later than July 29, 2011. He has not yet done so. On that basis, defendant seeks leave to file her

19

pretrial statement fourteen days after plaintiff files his, and not on or before August 12, as

20

required in the scheduling order.

21

Good cause appearing, defendant’s motion will be granted. Plaintiff will have an

22

additional thirty days in which to file his pretrial statement. Once plaintiff serves his pretrial

23

statement, defendant will have fourteen days to file hers.

24
1

25
26

Fed. R. Civ. P 37(a)(5)(B) allows for the imposition of sanctions, in the form of
reasonable expenses, against a party for bringing an unsuccessful motion to compel. Here,
though, the court finds that plaintiff was substantially justified in bringing his motion, such that
no award of expenses is warranted under the Rule.
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s motion to reschedule discovery (Docket No. 38) is denied.

3

2. Defendant’s motion for an extension of time in which to file her pretrial

4

statement (Docket No. 42) is granted.

5

3. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of this order in which to file a pretrial

6

statement. Defendant shall file her pretrial statement no later than fourteen days after plaintiff

7

serves his pretrial statement.

8

Dated: August 11, 2011

9

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14

3
murp0308.ord

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3