Cejas v. Paramo et al

Filing 81

ORDER Denying 76 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 01/09/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDREW CEJAS,

Case No.: 14-CV-1923-WQH-WVG
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL

v.
DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

15

[ECF NO. 76]
Defendants.

16
17

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to his

18

interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests to produce documents. (ECF No. 76.)

19

Plaintiff argues that his various request for discovery were served on February 22, 2018

20

and that as of August 1, 2018 no responses were received. (Id. at 2.) As defendants S.

21

Rutledge, D. Strayhorn, and D. Jaime note in their opposition, fact discovery closed on

22

March 8, 2018. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Given this, Defendants did not have sufficient time to

23

respond prior to the discovery cutoff date. (Id.)

24

The Court finds the present motion to be untimely. Discovery ended over five

25

months before Plaintiff brought the present issue to the Court’s attention. The Court made

26

clear in its scheduling order that “[a]ll disputes concerning discovery shall be brought to

27

the attention of the Magistrate Judge no later than thirty (30) days following” the events

28

giving rise to the dispute. Assuming Plaintiff waited thirty days for Defendants to respond,
1
14-CV-1923-WQH-WVG

1

Plaintiff had until late April, 2018 to bring the present issue to the Court’s attention.

2

Instead, Plaintiff waited until August 3, 2018, to raise the issue in the form of the present

3

motion without explanation for the delay. Given this, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion

4

to compel as untimely.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2019

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
14-CV-1923-WQH-WVG