Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03765/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03765-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03765-JD 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 39, 40, 44, 45

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Defendants Clark and Pachynski filed a motion to dismiss on February 11, 2015 and 

defendant Hall filed a motion for summary judgment on February 12, 2015. Plaintiff requested a 

60 day extension to oppose these motions but has still not filed an opposition. He has now filed 

another request for a 60 day extension and a request for admissions. Plaintiff will be provided 

until July 3, 2015, to file his oppositions.

Plaintiff has also filed a request for admissions but the filing contains no specific 

information or requests. Plaintiff is informed that the Court generally is not involved in the 

discovery process and only becomes involved when there is a dispute between the parties about 

discovery responses. Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the 

parties without any copy sent to the court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and 

responses that “must not” be filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court 

orders otherwise). Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among 

themselves should the parties even consider asking the court to intervene in the discovery process. 

The Court does not have enough time or resources to oversee all discovery, and therefore requires 

that the parties present to it only their very specific disagreements. To promote the goal of 

Case 3:13-cv-03765-JD Document 46 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

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

addressing only very specific 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. See Fed. R. Civ .P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, 

one of the parties is a prisoner, the court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows 

the prisoner and defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although 

the format of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of the rule remains the same: the 

parties must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before seeking court intervention in 

any discovery dispute. The Court also notes that service was ordered on August 6, 2014, so it is 

not clear why plaintiff has not previously sought discovery and he must file oppositions to the 

pending motions.

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension (Docket No. 44) is GRANTED IN PART, and 

plaintiff has until July 3, 2015, to file his oppositions. 

2. The request for admissions (Docket No. 45) is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s prior motions for extensions (Docket Nos. 39, 40) are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-03765-JD Document 46 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03765-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 10, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Darrell Mitchell ID: CDCR# K-48636

Mule Creek State Prison B-9-220U

P.O. Box 409040

Ione, CA 95640 

Dated: June 10, 2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:13-cv-03765-JD Document 46 Filed 06/10/15 Page 3 of 3