Hardy v. Davis et al

Filing 73

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/27/16 denying Motions to Compel 47 , 65 . (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KRISTIN HARDY,

12

No. 2:13-cv-0726 JAM KJN P (TEMP)

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C. DAVIS, et al.

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with an action for alleged civil rights violations
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed three motions to compel discovery.
Plaintiff filed his first motion to compel discovery on June 25, 2015, before the defendants

20

answered the operative complaint. The motion was therefore premature. Then, after the

21

defendants answered, the court set the discovery schedule and, later, granted defendants an

22

extension of time in which to serve discovery responses. (See ECF Nos. 56 and 63.) Before that

23

extension of time expired, though, plaintiff filed another motion to compel on December 21,

24

2015. That motion was also premature: defendants served plaintiff with their discovery responses

25

on the same day, a compliance plaintiff acknowledges in his third motion to compel, which he

26

filed January 11, 2016. (See ECF No. 67 at 4.) There, he gamely requested that the court

27

“disregard” his previous motions to compel. The court will therefore deny the first and second

28

motions to compel as premature and moot.
1

However, to the extent plaintiff’s third motion to compel argues that defendants’

1
2

discovery responses are incomplete, the court will issue its ruling on that motion in a separate

3

order.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions to compel (ECF Nos. 47 and

5

65) are denied.

6

Dated: January 27, 2016

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

hard0726.ord

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