Moore v. McDonald

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/2/12 ORDERING that 51 Motion to Compel is DENIED; 53 Motion to conduct plaintiffs deposition via videoconference is GRANTED. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MARIO K. MOORE,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL McDONALD, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

No. 10-cv-3457 KJM KJN P

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel filed June

18

18, 2012 (Dkt. No. 51), and defendants’ motion to conduct plaintiff’s deposition via

19

videoconference filed July 30, 2012 (Dkt. No. 53). For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion

20

is denied and defendants’ motion is granted.

21

Motion to Compel

22

Plaintiff argues that defendants’ failed to respond to interrogatories, requests for

23

admissions and a request for production of documents. In the opposition, defendants state that

24

on May 9, 2012, the court issued a scheduling order granting the parties forty-five days to

25

respond to discovery requests. Defendants state that plaintiff served the at-issue discovery

26

requests on May 6, 2012. Attached as exhibits to defendants’ opposition are plaintiff’s proofs of
1

1

service for the at-issue discovery requests indicating that they were served on May 6, 2012. (Dkt.

2

No. 52-2 at 9, 13, 20.) In the opposition, defendants state that they served plaintiff with their

3

responses to these discovery requests on June 25, 2012. (Dkt. No. 52-3 at 15, 22, 29.)

4

Defendants had forty-eight days, i.e., forty-five days plus three days for service

5

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), to serve plaintiff with their discovery

6

responses. Forty-eight days from May 6, 2012 is Saturday June 23, 2012. Because the forty-

7

eighth day fell on a Saturday, defendants’ responses were due the following Monday, i.e., June

8

25, 2012. See Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. 6(a)(1)(C). Because defendants served plaintiff with timely

9

responses to the discovery requests, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.

10

Motion to Conduct Deposition Via Videoconference

11

Defendants request that they be permitted to conduct plaintiff’s deposition via

12

videoconference. Plaintiff is incarcerated at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). Defendants

13

state that conducting plaintiff’s deposition via videoconference would minimize defendants’

14

travel related expenses. Good cause appearing, defendants’ motion is granted.

15

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 51) is denied;

17

2. Defendants’ motion to conduct plaintiff’s deposition via videoconference (Dkt.

18

No. 53) is granted.

19

DATED: August 2, 2012

20
21

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23

mo3457.com

24
25
26
2