Walton v. Butler et al

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/12/11 denying plaintiff's motions to compel 34 , 35 . (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RONALD E. WALTON,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. CIV S-09-0479 EFB P

J. BUTLER, et al.,

14
15
16

Defendants.

ORDER
/

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

17

U.S.C. § 1983. He moves to compel defendants to produce responses to his requests for

18

production of documents. As explained below, plaintiff’s motion is denied as untimely.

19

On May 6, 2010, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order. Dckt. No. 17. That

20

order required that discovery, including any motions to compel, be completed by August 6,

21

2010. Id. The order also required that requests for written discovery be served no later than

22

June 7, 2010. Id. Thereafter, plaintiff moved to modify the scheduling order on the grounds

23

that he could not meet the June 7, 2010 deadline because his access to the law library had been

24

severely limited and he had temporarily been deprived of his legal materials. Dckt. Nos. 18, 20.

25

On August 5, 2010, the court granted plaintiff’s motion and issued an amended discovery and

26

scheduling order. Dckt. No 22. The August 5, 2010 order required that discovery be completed
1

1

by, and any motions to compel filed by, November 15, 2010. Id. The order also required that all

2

discovery requests be served no later than September 13, 2010. Id.
On November 22, 2010, plaintiff requested another extension of time to conclude

3
4

discovery, stating that he had been on lockdown since October 11, 2010 and that he had not

5

received any of the documents he had requested from defendants. Dckt. No. 28. On December

6

8, 2010, the court denied plaintiff’s motion, as it was untimely and did not demonstrate the

7

requisite good cause for further modification of the scheduling order. Id. The court noted that

8

plaintiff had “not explained what efforts he made, if any, from August through September, the

9

period of time preceding the October 2010 lockdown, to conduct discovery.” Id. The court also

10

noted that it was not clear from plaintiff’s request whether he sought an extension of time to

11

conduct discovery in the first instance, or to file a motion to compel defendants to respond to his

12

discovery requests. Id.

13

Now pending are plaintiff’s December 9, 2010 and December 14, 2010 motions to

14

compel. Dckt. Nos. 34, 35. Those motions request that defendants be compelled to produce any

15

video surveillance of the April 1, 2008 assault, as well as all of defendants’ personnel files. See

16

Dckt. No. 34 at 1. Plaintiff states that he requested these materials from defendants on August

17

11, 2010 and on September 16, 2010, but that defendants have not provided these materials to

18

him. Id. Defendants argue that the motions are untimely. They also contend that they have fully

19

responded to plaintiff’s requests for production by making appropriate objections and providing

20

all documents within their possession, custody or control. Dckt. No. 36.

21

Pursuant to the amended discovery and scheduling order, motions to compel were due by

22

November 15, 2010. Dckt. No. 22. Plaintiff’s December 2010 motions are untimely and

23

plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for further amendment of the scheduling order.

24

////

25

////

26

////
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to compel, Dckt. Nos.

2

34 and 35, are denied.

3

DATED: April 12, 2011.

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