Hash v. Cate et al
Filing
92
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE: UNRESOLVED DISCOVERY MATTERS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 23, 2012. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CHARLES LEE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
______________________________ )
LAWRENCE GEORGE HASH,
No. C 08-3729 MMC (PR)
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE RE: UNRESOLVED
DISCOVERY MATTERS
On August 4, 2008, plaintiff, a California prisoner then incarcerated at the
16
Correctional Training Facility at Soledad and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil
17
rights action.1 On June 5, 2012, defendants filed a request for extensions of time to complete
18
discovery and to file a dispositive motion. In support thereof, defendants submitted a
19
declaration stating plaintiff had been disregarding his discovery obligations and that
20
defendants would be filing a motion to dismiss, or alternatively to compel. In response,
21
plaintiff filed a document opposing the requested modification and titled in part “Renewed
22
Objections to Defendants’ Proposed Deposition.”
23
By order filed June 7, 2012, the Court granted defendants’ request for extensions of
24
time; defendants’ motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion is currently due
25
no later than November 5, 2012. If defendants intend to file a motion with respect to any
26
unresolved discovery matters, they shall do so no later than August 20, 2012. Plaintiff shall
27
28
1
Plaintiff currently is incarcerated in the California State Prison (“CSP”) at Solano.
1
file any response to defendants’ motion no later than September 10, 2012; plaintiff’s
2
response must include any objections to discovery and shall not incorporate by reference
3
material from his prior filings. Defendants shall file their reply no later than September 24,
4
2012.
5
The parties are reminded that they must make a good faith effort to meet and confer to
6
attempt to resolve any discovery dispute before filing any motion to compel. See Fed. R.
7
Civ. P. 37(1); N.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 37-1.
At the time they file a dispositive motion, defendants must send to plaintiff the
9
appropriate notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), if they move
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
for summary judgment, or by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003), if they move
11
to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
12
15548, slip op. 7871 (9th Cir. July 6, 2012).
13
14
15
16
See Woods v. Carey, No. 09-
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 23, 2012
_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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?