Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05466/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05466-14/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

DONALD GLASS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. BEER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-05466-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

MARSHALL’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO SERVE RESPONSE TO

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, NUNC PRO

TUNC TO NOVEMBER 3, 2006

(Doc. 121)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY

DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A MOTION

TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF

DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS AND/OR

OBJECTIONS, IF SUCH MOTION IS

NECESSARY

On November 1, 2006, defendant Marshall filed a motion seeking an extension of time to

serve plaintiff with a response to plaintiff’s request for admissions. (Doc. 121.) On November 3,

2006, defendant Marshall filed a notice stating that his response was served on November 3, 2006.

(Doc. 122.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant’s motion on November 16, 2006. (Doc. 126.)

In a forty-three page order issued on November 16, 2006, the court resolved plaintiff’s

pending motion to compel and for sanctions. Therefore, plaintiff’s reference to that motion and his

merging of arguments made in that motion with the arguments made in the instant opposition will

not be addressed. 

Although plaintiff argues that defendant’s counsel intentionally failed to respond and that he

will suffer prejudice if defendant’s motion is granted, plaintiff has made no showing that defendant’s

Case 1:04-cv-05466-OWW -SMS Document 128 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 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

2

counsel acted in bad faith or that he will suffer any actual prejudice. Further, because plaintiff did

not submit any evidence that he notified defendant’s counsel that a response to the request for

admissions was still outstanding, plaintiff is not in a position to seek sanctions.

The court is going to grant defendant’s motion. However, plaintiff will be granted thirty days

within which to file a motion to determine the sufficiency of defendant Marshall’s answers and/or

objections, should plaintiff determine that such a motion is necessary. In determining whether such

a motion is necessary, plaintiff is directed to review the court’s forty-three page order filed

November 16, 2006, for guidance. If plaintiff finds such a motion to be necessary, plaintiff is

relieved of his obligation to make a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute with defendant’s

counsel prior to filing his motion.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Marshall’s motion for an extension of time to serve a response to

plaintiff’s request for admissions is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc to November 3, 2006;

and

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date ofservice of this order within

which to file a motion to determine the sufficiency of defendant’s answers and/or

objections, should plaintiff such a motion necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05466-OWW -SMS Document 128 Filed 12/08/06 Page 2 of 2