Leonard v. Denny, et al

Filing 116

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/16/16 ordering plaintiffs motions to compel answers to interrogatories and requests for admissions 108 , 109 , 11 are vacated with leave to re-file as necessary after the parties meet andconfer. Plaintiffs motion for extension of time 110 is denied as moot. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID G. LEONARD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-0915 TLN AC P

v.

ORDER

JIM DENNY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a former county and current state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this action. Currently before the court are plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to

19

supplement his previously filed motions to compel (ECF No. 110) and three motions to compel

20

answers to special interrogatories and requests for admissions from defendants Brown, Denney,

21

Parker, and Bidwell (ECF Nos. 108, 109 & 111).

22
23

I.

Motions to Compel
On November 7, 2016, the undersigned magistrate judge signed an order that was filed the

24

following day (ECF No. 107), vacating plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories

25

(ECF No. 104) and directing the parties to meet and confer telephonically regarding that matter

26

and any other foreseeable discovery disputes. Also on November 7, 2016, the court received two

27

additional discovery motions from plaintiff: a motion to compel answers to special interrogatories

28

from defendant Brown (ECF No. 108) and a motion to compel answers to requests for admissions
1

1

from defendants Denney, Parker, and Bidwell (ECF No. 109). These matters were entered on the

2

court’s docket after the November 8 order was issued. On November 14, 2016, apparently before

3

he received the November 8 order, plaintiff filed still another motion to compel (ECF No. 111).

4

Because these discovery motions (ECF Nos. 108, 109, 111) were all filed before the

5

parties could meet and confer, they will be vacated with leave to re-file as in accordance with the

6

time-frames set forth in the November 8, 2016 order.

7

II.

8
9

Motion for Extension of Time
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for extension of time to supplement his motions to

compel, listing various reasons for the extension. ECF No. 110 at 2-4. The present motion for

10

extension of time is denied as moot, because the deadline for filing a motion to compel responses

11

to requests for admissions and plaintiff’s motions to compel admissions and interrogatory

12

responses have been vacated. See supra Section I; ECF No. 107. As previously ordered, plaintiff

13

shall have forty-five days from the date of the meet and confer to file a motion to compel answers

14

to interrogatories or requests for admissions should those issues not be resolved during the

15

telephonic meet and confer.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

17

1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel answers to interrogatories and requests for admissions (ECF

18

No. 108, 109, 111) are vacated with leave to re-file as necessary after the parties meet and

19

confer.

20

2.

21

DATED: November 16, 2016.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 110) is denied as moot.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2