Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00540/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00540-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES H. FISHER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0540 MCE EFB P

vs.

N. DIZON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the March 21, 2005, complaint in which plaintiff alleges

that he was sexually assaulted, beaten and repeatedly awakened early in the morning and

threatened with knives. Plaintiff moves to compel defendants to respond to interrogatories and

requests for production of documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B). He also seeks

defendants’ personnel records. Defendants oppose on the grounds that the discovery requests

plaintiff served were late, the motion to compel is late and plaintiff did not serve discovery

requests seeking defendants’ personnel records. For the reasons explained below, the court finds

that plaintiff’s motion should be denied.

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-00540-MCE -EFB Document 57 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 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

2

I. Facts

On July 28, 2006, the court issued a scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. See Docket # 35. In it, the court ordered that discovery would close

on November 3, 2006, and that all discovery requests must be served no later than 60 days before

that date. On September 21, 2006, plaintiff served on defendants’ counsel interrogatories and a

request for the production of documents. Opp’n, Ex. A at 15. On October 31, 2006, counsel for

defendants wrote to plaintiff explaining that she did not intend to respond to plaintiff’s discovery

requests because they were served late. On November 27, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to

compel.

II. Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents

As stated, plaintiff seeks to compel responses to these discovery requests, and defendants

oppose on the ground that the requests and this motion are late. Pursuant to the scheduling

order, discovery closed on November 3, 2006, and all discovery requests had to be served no

later than 60 days before that date. Thus, plaintiff had to serve his interrogatories and request for

the production of documents no later than September 4, 2006. A scheduling order may be

modified only on a showing of good cause, meaning that the party could not meet the deadline

despite exercising due diligence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, defendants have submitted evidence that plaintiff did

not serve the discovery requests until September 21, 2006. Plaintiff does not contest this

evidence. Nor does he explain why the requests were late. Instead, he merely asserts that he

should not be held to “a stringent letter of the law, especially on technical matters that deal with

timing, as plaintiff is limited to the time when he can get to the law library” to obtain copies, use

typewriters, and the like. Motion at 4-5. The court finds that plaintiff served his interrogatories

and requests for the production of documents beyond the time permitted in the scheduling order

and he does not demonstrate that he could not, despite due diligence, timely serve them. 

////

Case 2:05-cv-00540-MCE -EFB Document 57 Filed 07/17/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Defendants also contend that the court should deny plaintiff’s motion because it was filed

after discovery closed. Plaintiff asserts that he knew at the time of his October 2006 deposition

that defendants had not responded to his discovery requests, but he relied on counsel’s

representation at that time that a response would be forthcoming. Motion at 4. As stated,

discovery closed on November 3, 2006. On October 31, 2006, counsel wrote a letter to plaintiff

explaining that the parties would not respond to the discovery requests because they were late. 

Applying the mailbox rule, see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988), plaintiff did not file

his motion to compel until on November 14, 2007, 11 days after discovery closed. He does not

explain why he waited so long to file the motion. Thus, he fails to demonstrate good cause under

Rule 16(b). Plaintiff’s motion to compel must be denied on the ground that it was filed beyond

the time permitted in the scheduling order.

III. Personnel Records

Plaintiff moves for production and in camera inspection of defendants’ personnel

records. Defendants oppose on the ground that plaintiff did not serve requests for these

documents. A party may move for an order compelling discovery with respect to objections or

other failure to respond to interrogatories or requests to produce documents. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(2)(B), 33(b)(5), 34(b). Plaintiff makes no showing that he served requests for these

documents on any of the defendants. Therefore, there is no basis for compelling a response. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel personnel records therefore must be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 27, 2006, motion is denied.

Dated: July 16, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00540-MCE -EFB Document 57 Filed 07/17/07 Page 3 of 3