Rodriguez v. Cate et al

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel GRANTING 18 plaintiff's Motion to Stay pending resolution of Motion to Compel; DENYING 19 plaintiff's Motion to Compel; Oppositions to be filed by 12/31/2010; Replies to be filed by 1/18/2011 (Attachments: # 1 CertServ) (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2010)

Rodriguez v. Cate et al

Doc. 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CESAR RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. MR. CATE, etc.; et al., Defendants. /

No. C 09-1769 MHP (pr) ORDER

In this prisoner's pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff alleges that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Defendants moved for summary judgment several months ago. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery and to stay the summary judgment proceedings pending a ruling on his motion to compel. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses is DENIED. (Docket # 19.) Plaintiff did not make the necessary good faith effort to meet and confer to attempt to resolve the discovery dispute before filing the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); N. D. Cal. Local Rule 37. To promote the goal of addressing only very specific discovery disagreements (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the court requires that the parties meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention. In the case of an incarcerated litigant, the meet-and-confer process may be accomplished by telephone conference or by the exchange of correspondence. Plaintiff took no steps to meet and confer to try to resolve the dispute before filing his motion to compel.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff's motion for a stay pending a resolution of his motion to compel is GRANTED. (Docket # 18.) Now that the court has denied his motion to compel, the court will set a briefing schedule for the opposition and reply on defendants' pending motion for summary judgment: No later than December 31, 2010, plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. No later than January 18, 2011, defendants must file and serve their reply (if any) in support of the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff should not expect any further extensions of the deadline to file his opposition. By the time the deadline arrives, plaintiff will have had more than eight months to prepare his opposition. He should be preparing his opposition regardless of whether he is able to obtain further discovery responses. Indeed, because defendants' motion for summary judgment raises a qualified immunity defense, it is quite possible that defendants will request a stay of discovery. Typically defendants are entitled to a stay of discovery upon request when they have raised a qualified immunity defense. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 22, 2010 _____________________ Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Judge

2