Harris v. Fernan et al

Filing 75

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 09/18/19 GRANTING 72 Motion for clarification and GRANTING IN PART 74 Motion for Extension of time. Within 14 days from the date of this order, plaintiff may file a reply to defendants response 71 . (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAYDE HOLLIS HARRIS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-0680 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER S. KERNAN, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. This action proceeds on 18 plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical claims against defendant Dr. Kuersten. (ECF No. 22 at 9- 19 10.) Two motions filed by plaintiff are pending. 20 Motion for Clarification 21 First, plaintiff seeks clarification of the court’s July 29, 2019 order, objecting that 22 defendant failed to respond to plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 63) within 45 days, and 23 argues that any opposition to the motion should be deemed waived. Plaintiff’s motion was signed 24 and presented to prison staff for mailing on August 8, 2019. (ECF No. 72.) 25 Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion for clarification is granted. At the time plaintiff 26 filed his motion to compel, discovery was closed, which is why plaintiff was required to file a 27 motion to extend the discovery deadline (ECF No. 62). Litigants are not required to oppose 28 motions to compel filed after the discovery deadline expires. 1 Plaintiff’s motion to extend the deadline was granted, and, in turn, defendant was granted 2 thirty days in which to file an opposition. Defendant’s opposition was timely-filed on August 29, 3 2019. (ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff’s reply was due on September 5, 2019. Local Rule 230(l). On 4 September 10, 2019, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 63). 5 Because defendant’s opposition was timely, no waiver occurred. 6 Motion for Extension 7 On September 16, 2019, plaintiff filed a request for extension of time in which to respond 8 to defendant’s response to the court’s August 1, 2019 order, as well as to file a reply to 9 defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses (ECF No. 63). 10 As set forth above, the court has ruled on plaintiff’s motion to compel. Therefore, plaintiff’s 11 request for extension of time to file a reply is denied. 12 Plaintiff is granted fourteen days in which to respond to defendant’s response to the 13 court’s August 1, 2019 order. (ECF No. 71.) At that time, the court will re-set the pretrial 14 motions deadline. The parties are reminded that discovery is now closed. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (ECF No. 72) is granted; and 17 2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 74) is granted in part; within 18 fourteen days from the date of this order, plaintiff may file a reply to defendant’s response (ECF 19 No. 71). 20 Dated: September 18, 2019 21 22 23 24 /harr0680.36c 25 26 27 28 2

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?