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