Thomas v. Swarthout et al

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/4/15 denying 56 Motion for Reconsideration. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LLOYD M. THOMAS,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-2412 EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

G. SWARTHOUT, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983. On February 12, 2015, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for additional

18

discovery and revised the schedule in this action. ECF No. 55. In doing so, the court noted that,

19

with regard to several of defendants’ discovery responses, plaintiff had failed to indicate why the

20

response defendants provided was inadequate. For that reason, the court declined to order

21

defendants to provide additional responses to those particular discovery requests. Plaintiff has

22

requested reconsideration of the court’s order on those contested discovery responses and is now

23

providing the reasons why he finds the initial responses inadequate. ECF No. 56. Those stated

24

reasons provide clarity that was not fully stated in the original requests. Accordingly, the court

25

will deny the request for reconsideration and directs plaintiff to re-serve the contested discovery

26

requests on defendants within the new discovery deadlines provided in the February 11, 2015

27

order (March 30, 2015). If plaintiff believes that defendants’ responses are again inadequate,

28

plaintiff must file a motion to compel on or before April 30, 2015.
1

1

Plaintiff has also sent a letter to the clerk asking for clarification of the February 11th

2

order. ECF No. 57. The February 11th order directed defendants to respond to those discovery

3

requests by March 30, 2015. Plaintiff need not re-serve these requests nor file another motion to

4

obtain responses. If, when he receives them, plaintiff believes that the responses are inadequate,

5

he must file a motion to compel further responses by April 30, 2015, as directed in the February

6

11th order.

7

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s February 25, 2015 motion for

8

reconsideration (ECF No. 56) is denied.

9

DATED: March 4, 2015.

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