Cecil vs. Beard

Filing 91

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/12/2014 DENYING plaintiff's 89 motion to compel, as untimely. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARY CECIL,

12
13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1923 TLN KJN P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

JEFF BEARD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On November 7, 2014, plaintiff

18

filed a motion to compel discovery. Plaintiff’s contends that Dr. Rohlfing failed to verify his

19

responses to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories.

20
21
22
23
24
25

6. On July 18, 2014, the court issued its discovery order setting the
following discovery deadlines: The parties may conduct discovery
until October 31, 2014. Any motions necessary to compel
discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34 or 36 shall be served not later
than sixty days prior to that date.
(ECF No. 63 at 5.)
The certificate of service appended to plaintiff’s motion was signed and dated by plaintiff

26

on November 2, 2014. Thus, plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is untimely under the

27

scheduling order because it was not presented to prison officials for mailing on or before October

28

31, 2014. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 89)

2

is denied as untimely.

3

Dated: November 12, 2014

4
5

/ceci1923.mtc

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2