Romo v. Cate et al

Filing 94

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 09/27/16 granting 75 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff shall respond to defendant's discovery requests within 30 days from the date of this order. Defendants' 09/15/16 motion to modify the dispositive motion deadline 91 is granted. The dispositive motion deadline is continued to 12/15/16. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EZEQUIEL ROMO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-2898 GEB DB P

v.

ORDER

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

19

Introduction
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action brought

20

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ January 7, 2016, motion to

21

compel and September 15, 2016, motion to modify the dispositive motion deadline. ECF Nos. 75,

22

91.

23

II.

24

Discussion
This matter proceeds on plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint against defendants T. Virga;

25

G. Drummond; Cpt. Kramer; Lt. J. Stewart; Sgt. Buchanan; Sgt. Ellen; Sgt. Engellener;

26

R.Mendoza; C/O E. Baker; I. Montez; and C/O R. Hood. See ECF Nos. 21, 25, 57.

27
28

On September 8, 2015, a Discovery and Scheduling Order (“DSO”) issued setting January
1

1

11, 2016, as the discovery deadline, and March 9, 2016, as the deadline for filing dispositive

2

motions. ECF No. 73.
Shortly after filing their motion to compel, defendants moved for a settlement conference.

3
4

ECF No. 76. On March 8, 2016, the Court granted defendants’ request. See ECF No. 77. The

5

dispositive motion deadline was therefore vacated, and this matter was set for settlement

6

conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman for July 27, 2016. After settlement

7

negotiations were held, the case did not settle. Thus, pursuant to the March 8, 2016, Order, the

8

dispositive motion deadline is now September 27, 2016.
In their January 7, 2016, motion to compel and in a recently-filed status report, defendants

9
10

claim that plaintiff has failed entirely to respond to their discovery requests. See ECF No. 93.

11

Plaintiff has also not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. In

12

light of plaintiff’s failure to respond, defendants now seek a 90-day extension of the dispositive

13

motion deadline. ECF No. 91. Defendants have demonstrated good cause for both of their

14

motions.

15

III.

Conclusion

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1. Defendants’ January 7, 2016, motion to compel (ECF No. 75) is GRANTED;

18

2. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant’s discovery requests within thirty days from the

19
20
21
22
23

date of this Order;
3. Defendants’ September 15, 2016, motion to modify the dispositive motion deadline
(ECF No. 91) is GRANTED; and
4. The dispositive motion deadline is continued to December 15, 2016.
Dated: September 27, 2016

24
25
26
27
28

/DLB7;romo2898.mtc2

2