Birrell v. Knauf et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 08/10/11 denying 40 plaintiff's motion to compel and denying 42 plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery cut-off date. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID WESLEY BIRRELL, aka BELLA-CHRISTINA BIRRELL, No. CIV S-10-1707-GEB-CMK-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. ORDER 14 KEITH HARLAN KNAUF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s second motion for leave to take the 20 depositions of incarcerated witnesses (Doc. 40) and plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery 21 cut-off date (Doc. 42). 22 Plaintiff seeks leave of court to take the oral depositions of four incarcerated 23 witnesses. As with the first motion for leave to take depositions, plaintiff does not state how the 24 four proposed deponents have any personal knowledge of matters relevant to this action. The 25 motion for leave to take depositions will be denied. 26 /// 1 1 2 3 4 5 Plaintiff also seeks an order extending the time to conduct discovery to January 2012. For cause, plaintiff states: This enlargement of time to conduct formal discovery is necessary due to a complete disruption in programming that occurred at the California Medical Facility on 3 July 2011 and lasted through the 25th of July 2011 due to an out break of violence between Black and Southern Hispanic inmates which occurred on the institution’s main yard on 3 July 2011. 6 7 Plaintiff, however, does not demonstrate how the month-long disruption in programming 8 hampered his ability to conduct formal discovery prior to July 2011 or after July 2011. In this 9 regard, the court notes that discovery opened on June 7, 2011, and currently is scheduled to 10 continue through September 26, 2011. Plaintiff still has almost two months in which to conduct 11 discovery and he does not state how this remaining time is insufficient. Plaintiff’s motion to 12 extend the discovery cut-off date will also be denied. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 40) is denied; and 15 2. Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery cut-off date (Doc. 42) is denied. 16 17 18 19 DATED: August 10, 2011 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?