Ramirez v. Fleming, et al.

Filing 62

ORDER denying 61 Motion for Sanctions, signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/13/16. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAUL ENRIQUE RAMIREZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-1937 KJM CKD P

v.

ORDER

B. FLEMING, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On October 3, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion seeking “sanctions” against defendants under

17
18

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based upon allegations by plaintiff that

19

defendants failed to provide certain documents and other information in discovery.1 Essentially,

20

/////

21

/////

22

/////

23

/////

24

/////

25
1

26
27

One of plaintiff’s allegations is defendants failed to provide the “initial” disclosures required
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). However, since plaintiff is proceeding without
an attorney and is in the custody of a state of the United States, the parties are exempt from the
“initial disclosure” provisions found in Rule 26(a)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv).

28
1

1

this is plaintiff’s second motion to compel filed after the close of discovery on June 9, 2016.2

2

ECF No. 45 & 49. As with the first motion, the second (ECF No. 61) is untimely and is denied.

3

Dated: October 13, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8
9

1
rami1937.mtc(2)

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

2

The first motion was filed August 1, 2016 and denied August 3, 2016.
2