Manzanillo v. Lewis et al

Filing 139

ORDER Re Pending Discovery Matters. Signed by Judge Nandor Vadas on 12/29/2014. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 EUREKA DIVISION 8 9 RAYMOND J. MANZANILLO, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiff, No. 03-CV-05983 JST NJV ORDER RE PENDING DISCOVERY MATTERS v. 12 GREGORY D. LEWIS, et al., 13 Defendants. ___________________________________/ 14 15 On October 22, 2014, District Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order in which he referred to the 16 undersigned Plaintiff’s discovery motions filed prior to the stay entered in this case. (Doc.128.) To 17 avoid any confusion as to which discovery matters remain pending, Judge Tigar directed Plaintiff to 18 file a list of “all discovery disputes for which he has filed a motion and is awaiting a ruling.” Id. 19 Judge Tigar also specifically referred to the undersigned Plaintiff’s January 15, 2014 motion to 20 compel, his January 21, 2014 motion to serve additional interrogatories, and his September 29, 2014 21 motion to compel, along with all further discovery motions filed in this action. (Id.) 22 In compliance with Judge Tigar’s order, Plaintiff filed a Summary of Pending Discovery in 23 which he listed the following pending motions: 1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of 24 Documents filed February 24, 2014, Doc. 66; 2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Interrogatory 25 Responses filed March 25, 2014, Doc. 86; and 3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to 26 Interrogatory filed September 29, 2014, Doc. 124. (Doc. 131.) Plaintiff further listed the following 27 renewed motion: his January 15, 2014 Motion to Overrule Objections. (Docs. 56, 133). Pursuant to 28 Judge Tigar’s instruction, the undersigned will consider this list as comprising all of the pending discovery motions before the court at the time Plaintiff filed his Summary on November 10, 2014. 1 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed February 24, 2014, (Doc. 66) 2 and his renewed Motion for Court to Overrule Objections (Docs. 56, 133) are fully briefed and will 3 be addressed by separate order. 4 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses filed March 25, 2014 (Doc. 86) and 5 Motion to Compel Response to Interrogatory filed September 29, 2014 (Doc. 124) are not yet fully 6 briefed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ responses to these motions 7 SHALL be filed no later than January 9, 2014. Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendants’ responses 8 no later than January 16, 2014. Additional Interrogatories (Doc. 132) and a Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 134.) Defendants filed their 11 For the Northern District of California Finally, on November 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion for Leave to Serve 10 United States District Court 9 response to these motions on December 8, 2014 (Doc. 136) and they are pending before the court. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 15 Dated: December 29, 2014 NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 EUREKA DIVISION 11 For the Northern District ofFor the Northern District of California California United States DistrictStates District Court United Court 10 12 No.1:12-CV- 5983 JST NJV RAYMOND J. MANZANILLO, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. GREGORY D. LEWIS, et al, 16 Defendants. / 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on December 29, 2014, I served a true and correct copy of the attached by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail. Raymond J. Manzanillo #:J91574 Pelican Bay State Prison P.O. Box 7500, Housing: A1-222 (AD-SEG) Crescent City, CA 95532 24 25 26 27 28 /s/ Linn Van Meter Linn Van Meter Administrative Law Clerk to the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas

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?