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)
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?