Medina v. Dickinson et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 3/14/12 ORDERING that defendants file a response to 47 MOTION to COMPEL by no later than 3/19/12. There will be no extension of time.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

RENE MEDINA,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14

No. CIV S-10-0502 LKK GGH P

vs.
KATHLEEN DICKINSON, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

15

By Order filed on November 1, 2011, pursuant to plaintiff’s motion, discovery

16

was “re-opened for the limited purpose of permitting plaintiff to serve his prepared discovery

17

requests upon defendants within fourteen days of the filed date of [that] order.” The discovery

18

deadline was extended to December 28, 2011, and the pretrial dispositive motion was extended

19

to April 11, 2012. Thereafter, on December 15, 2011, plaintiff filed a “motion for an order

20

compelling discovery,” averring that he had served his first set of interrogatories and his first set

21

of requests for production of documents, upon defendants Clark, Hurtado, Gonzalez and

22

Swarthout on November 15, 2011, but had yet to receive answers or any documents. Plaintiff

23

stated that he had also filed a copy of his discovery requests in court on the same date. See

24

Motion. Although it would not have been necessary to have filed his discovery requests at the

25

time he avers that he served them upon defendants, the undersigned notes that nothing in the case

26

docket indicates that plaintiff’s discovery requests were filed.
1

On February 13, 2012, plaintiff filed a letter directed to defendants’ counsel,

1
2

referencing discovery documents that he states were filed on November 15, 2012, and indicating

3

that to date, he still had received no discovery responses. No response to plaintiff’s motion or his

4

letter has been filed by defendants.

5

It is unclear to this court whether plaintiff properly served his discovery requests

6

upon defendants because, although he believes they have been filed in this court, they have not

7

been. Again, to do so would have been unnecessary on November 15, 2011. However, now it

8

has become an issue as to whether they were served upon defendants. Defendants must forthwith

9

inform the court whether they received the discovery requests and, if so, whether they have

10

responded to the requests and, if not, why they have not. If they did not receive the requests,

11

defendants should nevertheless have responded to plaintiff’s motion to so inform both the court

12

and plaintiff.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendants file a response to plaintiff’s

13
14

motion, filed on December 15, 2011 (docket # 47), by no later than March 19, 2012. There will

15

be no extension of time.

16

DATED: March 14, 2012
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
GGH:009

19

medi0502.ord4

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2