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