Greene v. Tilton et al

Filing 27

ORDER AND MODIFIED DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 2/1/2010 ORDERING that pltf's 23 motion to compel is DENIED w/out prejudice; pltf's 23 motion for sanctions is DENIED w/out prejudice; and pl tf's 23 motion for an extension of time to complete discovery is GRANTED; Discovery due by 3/29/2010; All Pretrial Motions, except motions to compel discovery, due by 6/28/2010; Pretrial Conference and Trial dates to be set as appropriate.(Yin, K)

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. JAMES TILTON, et al., Defendants. / ORDER AND MODIFIED DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD GREENE, Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-0793 JFM (PC)

On January 13, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery, order sanctions, and grant an extension of time to complete discovery. On January 14, 2010, defendants filed an opposition. Plaintiff asserts that on November 9, 2009, he served upon defendants a Request for Admissions. He also asserts that on November 16, 2009, he served upon defendants a Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff claims he was entitled to a response to each request within 30 days of service per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that he has not received a response to either set of requests. He seeks to compel defendants to respond. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against defendants for their alleged wilful failure to respond to his requests and further seeks an extension of time to complete discovery, as he claims he has been awaiting defendants' responses in order to subsequently serve interrogatories. 1

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

In their opposition, defendants declare they received the November 9, 2009 Request for Admission, to which they responded on December 14, 2009, within 45 days of service1. They have attached to their opposition their responses along with proof of service. Defendants, however, assert they did not receive a Request for Production of Documents. Upon review, the court does not find sanctions appropriate in this matter. Based thereon, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. 2. 3. Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied without prejudice; Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is denied without prejudice; and Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to complete discovery is

granted. Plaintiff shall be cognizant of the time within which responses are due, and shall serve his requests and interrogatories in accordance therewith. No further extensions of time will be granted. a. The parties may conduct discovery until March 29, 2010. Any

motions necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34 or 36 shall be served not later than sixty days prior to that date. b. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be

filed on or before June 28, 2010. Unless otherwise ordered, all motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, motions concerning discovery, motions pursuant to Rules 7, 11, 12, 15, 41, 55, 56, 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and motions pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 shall be briefed pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m). Failure to oppose such a motion timely may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. Opposition to all other motions need be filed only as directed by the court.

Plaintiff is referred to this court's October 14, 2009 discovery and scheduling order, in which the parties are ordered to respond to written discovery requests within forty-five (45) days of service, not thirty (30) days of service. 2

1

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
/014.gree0793.mtc

c.

Pretrial conference and trial dates will be set, as appropriate,

following adjudication of any dispositive motion, or the expiration of time for filing such a motion.

DATED: February 1, 2010.

3