Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06070/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06070-11/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE JEROME ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LT. R. D. VANDT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06070-OWW-LJO PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 116)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS FOR TWENTY-ONE DAY

EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND

GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY DAYS

THEREAFTER TO FILE A MOTION TO

COMPEL IF NECESSARY

(Docs. 114 and 117)

ORDER LIFTING REQUIREMENT THAT

PARTIES MEET AND CONFER PRIOR TO

SEEKING COURT INTERVENTION IN

DISCOVERY DISPUTES

On January 5, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to compel a response to his discovery request,

served on November 8, 2006. (Doc. 116.) Defendant Decker filed an opposition on January 18,

2007. (Doc. 118.)

A motion to compel must be accompanied by a copy of the discovery request at issue, and,

if a response was served but is in dispute, a copy of the response. The court cannot discern which

defendant the discovery request was served on or what the discovery request was. Without this

information, the court cannot address plaintiff’s motion to compel on the merits. Therefore,

Case 1:03-cv-06070-LJO -GSA Document 122 Filed 02/02/07 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

27

28

2

plaintiff’s motion shall be denied on the ground that it is procedurally deficient. Plaintiff has thirty

days from the date of service of this order within which to re-file a more specific motion to compel

accompanied by a copy of his discovery request and the response to the request, if any. Given that

the motion deadline is approaching, the requirement that plaintiff confer with defendants’ counsel

in an effort to resolve the dispute prior to seeking the court’s intervention is lifted.

On December 26, 2006, defendants Farris, Walters, Vaughn, Gabaldon, Arvizu, Vanzandt,

Lomonaco, and McDaniel filed a motion seeking an extension of time to serve a response to

plaintiff’s request for the production of documents. On January 16, 2007, defendants filed a second

motion seeking an extension of time. Defendants’ motions shall be granted and defendants shall

have twenty-one days from the date of service of this order within which to serve their response.

Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of service of the response to file a motion to compel,

if one is necessary. The requirement that plaintiff confer with defendants’ counsel in an effort to

resolve the dispute prior to seeking the court’s intervention is lifted.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed January 5, 2007, is DENIED as procedurally

deficient, without prejudice to re-filing within thirty (30) days from the date of

service of this order;

2. Defendants’ motions seeking a twenty-one day extension of time to serve a response

to plaintiff’s request for the production of documents, filed December 26, 2006, and

January 16, 2007, are GRANTED and defendants have twenty-one (21) days from

the date of service of this order within which to serve a response;

3. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of defendants’ response to his

request for the production of documents within which to file a motion to compel, if

he deems one necessary; and

///

///

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06070-LJO -GSA Document 122 Filed 02/02/07 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

27

28

3

4. The requirement that plaintiff confer with defendants’ counsel in an effort to resolve

discovery disputes prior to seeking the court’s intervention is lifted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06070-LJO -GSA Document 122 Filed 02/02/07 Page 3 of 3