Thorns v. Shannon et al

Filing 68

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/24/14 denying 57 Motion to Compel having been rendered moot by defendants' supplemental discovery responses. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRUCE THORNS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-01826 MCE DAD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

S. SHANNON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On August 29, 2014, the undersigned directed defendants to file and serve a statement

18

informing the court whether they had supplemented their discovery responses as previously

19

anticipated. (See ECF No. 66; see also Defs.’ Oppo. to Pl.’s Disc. Mtn. (ECF No. 61) filed July

20

16, 2014.) Plaintiff’s discovery motion, filed April 16, 2014, sought further production of

21

documents, photographs, video surveillance tapes, and other evidence. (See ECF No. 57.) In

22

their supplemental response filed September 5, 2014, defendants state in pertinent part:

23

26

The Requests for Admission and Requests for Interrogatories were
previously answered by Defendants, and served on Plaintiff.
Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
Documents ha[ve] been supplemented, and Plaintiff has been
prov[id]ed with the documents that exist, and that are not deemed
confidential for the safety and security of the institution, or deemed
privileged under state law.

27

(ECF No. 65 at 2.) Thus, defendants aver that they have provided plaintiff with all relevant non-

28

privileged discovery, as required by Rule 26(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

24
25

1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery

2

(ECF No. 57), is denied as having been rendered moot by defendants’ supplemental discovery

3

responses.

4

Dated: September 24, 2014

5
6
7

DAD:4
thorn1826.disc.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2