Romesh v. Walker et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 04/02/10 ordering plaintiff's request for an extension of time 37 is granted. Plaintiff is granted 28 days from the date of this order in which to respond to defendants' request for production of documents and interrogatories. No further extensions of time will be granted. Plaintiff's 02/17/10 motion for a protective order 33 is denied.(Plummer, M)

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 WALKER, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff has filed his second request for an extension of time to respond to defendants' interrogatories and request for production of documents. Good cause appearing, the request will be granted. No further extensions of time will be granted. On February 17, 2010, plaintiff filed objections to defendants' notice of deposition. Plaintiff first objects that defendants did not obtain leave of court to take his deposition. The December 1, 2009, scheduling order provides that defendants may depose plaintiff. See December 1, 2009, order, p. 5: 12-15. In his February 17, 2010, pleading, plaintiff also seeks a protective order to require defendants to provide him with an interpreter at his deposition. Plaintiff alleges that he does not speak English well enough and requires an interpreter who speaks Punjabi or Hindi. The court cannot order defendants to provide plaintiff with an interpreter, although it may be in their best interests to do so. If plaintiff does not understand the questions he is being asked, he ORDER ROMESH KANDA, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2197 MCE GGH P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

may state that on the record at his deposition. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time (Docket No. 37) is granted; 2. Plaintiff is granted twenty-eight days from the date of this order in which to respond to defendants' request for production of documents and interrogatories. No further extensions of time will be granted; 3. Plaintiff's February 17, 2010, motion for a protective order (no. 33) is denied. DATED: April 2, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
kan2197.po

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE