Williams v. Grannis, et al

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 5/25/2011 ORDERING that pltf's 44 motion to extend the time to file a motion to compel is GRANTED, the parties may conduct discovery, including filing any motions necessary to compel discovery, until 7/8/2011; pltf's 46 motion to vacate order is DENIED; and pltf's 47 motion to compel discovery is DENIED. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-09-1245 FCD GGH P

vs.
NOLA GRANNIS, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking

17

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 9, 2011, plaintiff filed a request to extend the time for

18

filing a motion to compel discovery. (Doc. #44.) Pursuant to the discovery and scheduling

19

order, the deadline for conducting discovery, including filing motions to compel, is June 10,

20

2011. Plaintiff argues that, because defendants have been granted an extension of time to file

21

their discovery responses, he in turn requires an additional 30 days to file any motions to compel

22

discovery. Good cause having been shown, the court will substantially grant plaintiff’s request

23

and extend the discovery deadline for 28 days.1

24
25
26

1

Even so, the parties are foreclosed from filing additional discovery requests. (See Doc.
#39 at 6 (discovery requests shall be served not later than sixty days prior to discovery cut-off
date)).
1

1

Plaintiff has also moved to vacate this court’s April 25, 2011 order granting

2

plaintiff’s motion to conduct plaintiff’s deposition via videoconference. (Doc. #46.) Plaintiff

3

argues that defendants did not give him fourteen days’ notice of the deposition as required by

4

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(a). Plaintiff’s attached exhibits indicate that plaintiff was served with notice

5

on April 27, 2011 that he would be deposed via videoconference on May 11, 2011. This

6

constitutes adequate notice under Rule 30(a) even if, as plaintiff claims, he did not actually

7

receive the notice until two days later. At any rate, because plaintiff presumably was deposed via

8

videoconference on May 11, 2011, plaintiff’s request to vacate the order permitting this has been

9

rendered moot. Thus, plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

10

Finally, plaintiff has moved to compel defendants’ response to his Requests for

11

Production (set two). (Doc. #47.) Defendants have indicated that they intend to respond to these

12

requests and that any suggestion to the contrary was inadvertent. (Doc. #48.) Thus, this motion

13

will be denied as well without prejudice to a motion regarding the requests.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

15

1. Plaintiff’s May 9, 2011 motion to extend the time to file a motion to compel

16

(Doc. #44) is GRANTED. The parties may conduct discovery, including filing any motions

17

necessary to compel discovery, until July 8, 2011;

18

2. Plaintiff’s May 9, 2011 motion to vacate order (Doc. #46) is DENIED; and

19

3. Plaintiff’s May 16, 2011 motion to compel discovery (Doc. #47) is DENIED.

20

DATED: May 25, 2011
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

21
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23

will1245.ord
GGH:14

24
25
26
2