Garces v. Pickett et al
Filing
121
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/28/2020 DENYING 120 Motion to Compel. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LUIS MANUEL GARCES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
No. 2:17-cv-0319 JAM AC P
ORDER
J. PICKETT, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. Now before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to his requests for
19
production, interrogatories, and requests for admissions. ECF No. 120. The following procedural
20
history is relevant to the court’s resolution of the motion.
21
After defendants answered the complaint, the undersigned issued a discovery and
22
scheduling order. ECF No. 60. Prior to the deadline for submitting written discovery requests
23
and the close of discovery, defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 66) and a
24
protective order staying discovery during the pendency of the motion (ECF No. 67). On May 10,
25
2019, the motion for protective order was granted and discovery was stayed, including the
26
deadlines for responding to any discovery requests that had already been served. ECF No. 68.
27
The motion for judgment on the pleadings was ultimately denied (ECF No. 114), and on June 29,
28
2020, the undersigned issued a new discovery and scheduling order and re-opened discovery
1
1
(ECF No. 115). After discovery was re-opened, defendants filed a motion for an extension of
2
time to respond to plaintiff’s first requests for production of documents, which were served prior
3
to the stay of discovery. ECF No. 117. The motion was granted and defendants’ time to submit
4
responses to the requests was extended to August 6, 2020. ECF No. 119.
5
In his present motion to compel, ECF No. 120, plaintiff asserts that he served
6
interrogatories on May 6, 2019; requests for production of documents on April 16, 2019, and May
7
12, 2019; and requests for admissions on May 24, 2019. ECF No. 120 at 1, 3-4. With respect to
8
plaintiff’s second set of requests for production of documents and requests for admissions, both
9
sets of requests were served after discovery was stayed. As such, defendants were under no
10
obligation to respond to the requests until they were properly served after discovery re-opened. If
11
plaintiff wants responses to his requests, he must re-serve the requests for admissions1 and second
12
set of requests for production of documents no later than August 24, 2020, which is the current
13
deadline for submitting written discovery requests.2
14
As for plaintiff’s first set of requests for production, the court has previously extended the
15
time for response to August 6, 2020. The motion is therefore premature as to those discovery
16
requests. Finally, plaintiff’s interrogatories were served four days before discovery was stayed,
17
meaning that once discovery re-opened defendants still had forty-four days3 remaining to submit
18
their responses. Accordingly, defendants’ responses to the interrogatories are not due until
19
August 12, 2020, and the motion to compel them is premature.
20
////
21
////
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Although plaintiff has attached a copy of his requests for admissions to the motion to compel
(ECF No. 120 at 13-16), the requests seek authentication of several documents and it is unclear
how many documents he seeks to authenticate and whether they have all been attached (id. at 16107).
2
As set forth in the discovery and scheduling order, defendants will have forty-five days from
the date the requests are served to respond.
3
Because plaintiff’s interrogatories were served by mail, defendants were entitled to an
additional three days to respond. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (responding party is entitled to an
additional three days when deadline is based on date of service and service is accomplished by
mail).
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 120)
2
is DENIED.
3
DATED: July 28, 2020
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?