Stribling v. Mott et al

Filing 92

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/08/19 GRANTING 83 Motion for Extension of time and DENYING 84 , 85 Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff shall have until 3/15/19 to provide supplemental responses to defendants' discove ry requests in compliance with the 8/29/18 order. No further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary cause. Defendants shall have until 4/15/19, to file any motions for sanctions based on plaintiff's failure to com ply with the 8/29/18 order. Dispositive motions will be due within 30 days of the resolution of any motions for sanctions. If no motions for sanctions are filed, dispositive motions will be due thirty days after the deadline for filing motions for sanctions expires. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AARON LAMONT STRIBLING,

12

No. 2:16-cv-0400 MCE CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

R. MOTT, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed August 29, 2018, the undersigned granted the defendants motions

19

to compel and directed plaintiff to provide the ordered discovery within thirty days. (ECF No. 75

20

at 10-11.) Instead of providing the discovery responses as ordered, plaintiff filed a motion for

21

reconsideration (ECF No. 77), which was denied (ECF No. 80). The court assumed that plaintiff

22

believed that his motion for reconsideration automatically stayed his obligation to comply with

23

the order granting the motions to compel and gave him additional time to comply with the order.

24

(ECF No. 82 at 2.) Defendants were also given additional time to file any motions for sanctions

25

based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with the August 29, 2018 order. (Id.)

26

Shortly before plaintiff’s deadline to provide discovery responses expired, he filed a

27

motion requesting an additional ninety days to comply, citing his separation from his legal

28

property since June 21, 2018. (ECF No. 83.) Both sets of defendants filed motions requesting
1

1

sanctions, but failed to address plaintiff’s claim that he had been separated from his legal

2

property. (ECF Nos. 84, 85.) The undersigned found that “[w]hile plaintiff’s claim that he has

3

been separated from his property does not excuse him from timely responding to discovery

4

requests to the best of his ability, it does raise serious concerns about his ability to fully respond

5

to the requests, particularly those for documents.” (ECF No. 88 at 2.) The defendants were then

6

ordered to address plaintiff’s claim. (Id.) Both sets of defendants have now provided their

7

responses. (ECF Nos. 90, 91.)

8
9

While defendant Salz has no knowledge of plaintiff’s property situation (ECF No. 91 at
1), counsel for defendants Mott, Andrichuk, Bell-Sprinkle, Glenn, Johnson, Molina, Morrow,

10

Murillo, Schneider, and Terry advise that plaintiff has in fact been separated from three boxes of

11

legal property since June 21, 2018, and that he has requested that the boxes be sent to plaintiff

12

(ECF No. 90 at 2-3). Counsel further provided documentation showing that plaintiff’s property

13

was sent to him on January 25, 2019, and the tracking information provided shows that they

14

arrived at plaintiff’s current housing location on January 28, 2019. (Id. at 10.)

15

In light of the fact that plaintiff was in fact separated from some of his legal property, both

16

motions for sanctions will be denied at this time. Since it appears that plaintiff should now be

17

able access his legal property, he will have one final opportunity to provide supplemental

18

discovery responses as ordered on August 29, 2018. No extensions of this deadline will be

19

granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Plaintiff is further reminded that

20

failure to provide the ordered discovery responses will subject him to sanctions that may range

21

from exclusion of evidence all the way up to dismissal of the case, depending upon the degree of

22

non-compliance. If plaintiff once again fails to comply with the August 29, 2018 order,

23

defendants may renew their motions for sanctions.

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 83) is granted and plaintiff shall

26

have until March 15, 2019, to provide supplemental responses to defendants’ discovery requests

27

in compliance with the August 29, 2018 order. No further extensions of time will be granted

28

absent a showing of extraordinary cause.
2

1

2. Defendants’ motions for sanctions (ECF Nos. 84, 85) are denied without prejudice.

2

3. Defendants shall have until April 15, 2019, to file any motions for sanctions based on

3
4

plaintiff’s failure to comply with the August 29, 2018 order.
4. Dispositive motions will be due within thirty days of the resolution of any motions for

5

sanctions. If no motions for sanctions are filed, dispositive motions will be due thirty days after

6

the deadline for filing motions for sanctions expires.

7

Dated: February 8, 2019

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11

13:stri0400.sanctions.deny

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3