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)

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