Harris v. Zamudio, et al

Filing 70

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/3/2013 GRANTING plaintiff's 69 motion for an extension of time; plaintiff has 30 days to file any cross-motion for summary judgment and his opposition to defendants' 9/24/14 motion for summary judgment; and DENYING, as moot, plaintiff's 62 motion to compel. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEVONTE B. HARRIS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:09-cv-1523 LKK AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

L. ZAMUDIO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff has filed a request for a seven-day extension of time to file a motion for summary

18

judgment. In light of the pendency of defendants’ September 24, 2013 motion for summary

19

judgment, plaintiff will be permitted additional time to file a cross-motion for summary judgment

20

along with his opposition to defendants’ motion.

21

Also pending before the court is plaintiff’s August 5, 2013 motion to compel production

22

of documents. ECF No. 62. Plaintiff sought further responses to his requests for production of

23

documents (RFP) nos. 7 and 8 propounded upon defendant Forsterer, and further responses to

24

RFP nos. 4, 5, 6 and 9 propounded upon defendant Walker. In opposition (ECF No. 64),

25

defendants Forsterer and Walker indicate that they have supplemented their responses to these

26

RFPs. Defendants contend that these supplemental responses have rendered plaintiff’s motion to

27

compel further discovery moot.

28

Defendants have provided their supplemental responses, which identify the documents

1

that have now been provided to plaintiff. The court’s review of the motion and of defendants’

2

supplemental responses confirms that the supplemental responses and production resolve the

3

discovery dispute. No further order of the court could enhance the supplemented responses.

4

Moreover, plaintiff filed no reply contesting the adequacy of the supplemented discovery

5

responses. The motion therefore will be denied as moot.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. Plaintiff’s September 23, 2013 motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 69) is

8
9

enlarged and is granted;
2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file any cross-

10

motion for summary judgment and his opposition to defendants’ September 24, 2014 motion for

11

summary judgment.

12

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further production of documents from defendants (ECF

13

No. 62) is denied as moot.

14

DATED: October 3, 2013

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

AC:009/md
harr1523.mtc+

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2