Owens v. Defazio et al

Filing 190

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 09/08/20 ORDERING that plaintiff's inquiry regarding the status of his motions to compel is deemed resolved. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THEON OWENS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2: 16-cv-2750 JAM KJN P

v.

ORDER

JOSEPH DEGAZIO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

17
18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 18, 2020, plaintiff filed a request for the court to rule on the

19

motion to compel responses to interrogatories filed by plaintiff on October 23, 2019. (ECF No.

20

179.) The undersigned addresses plaintiff’s August 18, 2020 inquiry herein.
Court records indicate that on October 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to compel further

21
22

responses to a request for production of documents. (ECF No. 137.) On January 10, 2020, the

23

undersigned granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s October 24, 2019 motion to compel.

24

(ECF No. 151.) Plaintiff’s October 24, 2019 motion to compel is resolved.
Court records indicate that on December 18, 2019, pursuant to the mailbox rule, plaintiff

25
26

filed a motion to compel further responses to request for admissions nos. 2 and 5. (ECF No. 146.)

27

Plaintiff also moved to compel further responses to his June 14, 2018 interrogatories. (Id.)

28

////
1

1

On March 5, 2020, the undersigned denied plaintiff’s December 18, 2019 motion to

2

compel further responses to request for admissions nos. 2 and 5. (ECF No. 158.) In the March 5,

3

2020 order, the undersigned ordered defendants to respond to plaintiff’s December 18, 2019

4

motion to compel further responses to plaintiff’s June 14, 2018 interrogatories. (Id.) Defendants

5

were ordered to address whether the motion to compel was timely. (Id.)

6

On April 3, 2020, defendants filed a response to the March 5, 2020 order. (ECF No. 163.)

7

Defendants argued that the motion to compel should be denied as untimely. (Id.) Defendants did

8

not address the merits of the motion to compel. (Id.)

9

On May 4, 2020, the undersigned issued an order finding that plaintiff’s December 18,

10

2019 motion to compel was timely. (ECF No. 169.) The undersigned directed defendants to file

11

a response addressing the merits of plaintiff’s December 18, 2019 motion to compel further

12

responses to plaintiff’s June 14, 2018 interrogatories, nos. 5-11, 13 and 18. (Id.)

13
14

On June 3, 2020, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s December 18, 2019 motion
to compel further responses to interrogatories no. 5-11, 13 and 18. (ECF No. 170.)

15

On August 3, 2020, the undersigned ordered defendants to inform the court whether they

16

provided plaintiff with signed and dated responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories. (ECF No. 175.)

17

The undersigned denied plaintiff’s December 18, 2019 motion to compel further responses to his

18

June 14, 2018 interrogatories, nos. 5-11, 13 and 18, in all other respects. (Id.)

19

On August 17, 2020, defendants informed the court that they provided plaintiff with

20

signed and dated verification pages for their responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories. (ECF No.

21

178.) Therefore, plaintiff’s December 18, 2019 motion to compel further responses to his June

22

14, 2018 interrogatories is resolved.

23

The undersigned has ruled on all of plaintiff’s motions to compel.

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s inquiry regarding the status of

25

his motions to compel is deemed resolved.

26

Dated: September 8, 2020
Ow2750.cla

27
28

2