Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01908/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01908-5/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

OSCAR MARSHALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAM AHLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01908 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION IN 

SUPPORT OF FURTHER DISCOVERY

[ECF Nos. 31, 36]

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

[ECF No. 34]

Plaintiff Oscar Marshall (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee in the custody of the California 

Department of Mental Health, detained pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act 

(“SVPA”), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600 et seq. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s complaint 

filed on November 16, 2011, against Defendants F. Moreno and R. Medina for violation of the 

Fourth Amendment and excessive force in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on January 22, 2014, and the Court issued 

a scheduling order on January 27, 2014. Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order, the deadline for 

completion of discovery was June 23, 2014. 

On August 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Defendants filed a motion 

for summary judgment on August 18, 2014. On September 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

extend time to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Defendants filed an 

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on October 9, 2014. On October 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion in 

support of further discovery, extension of time, and denial of Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment. 

Case 1:11-cv-01908-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 12/02/14 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

I. Motion to Compel

A. Legal Standard

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant 

to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). 

Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. (quotation marks omitted).

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel bears 

the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. See, e.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, 

2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012). This requires the moving party to inform the Court which 

discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the 

information sought is relevant and why the responding party’s objections are not meritorious. Id., at 

*1. 

However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding 

these procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigator. Therefore, to the extent 

possible, the Court endeavors to resolve the motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of 

Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 

625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

B. Analysis

Plaintiff filed his motion to compel on August 7, 2014. As noted above, the deadline for 

filing said motion was June 23, 2014, and Plaintiff did not previously seek an extension of time. 

Therefore, the motion must be denied as untimely. In addition, Defendants state they have provided 

Plaintiff with his entire medical record and over 100 pages of additional discovery, and Plaintiff 

failed to state what additional discovery was needed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is 

DENIED.

II. Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

On September 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file his opposition 

to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants filed an opposition to the request for an 

Case 1:11-cv-01908-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 12/02/14 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

extension on October 9, 2014. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

Plaintiff states his motion to compel is pending, and he requests an extension until such time 

that the motion is decided. As discussed above, the motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff will be 

granted an extension of fourteen (14) days to file his opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment.

III. Motion in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time and Further Discovery

On October 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion in support of further discovery, extension of 

time, and denial of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff states further discovery is 

needed pursuant to his motion to compel. He argues that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

must be denied until such time as discovery is complete.

As discussed above, the motion to compel is untimely. Discovery closed on June 23, 2014, 

and Plaintiff did not timely seek an extension of time. Plaintiff’s motion in support of further 

discovery and extension of time is therefore DENIED. In addition, the Court finds no basis on 

which to grant Plaintiff’s motion to deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED;

2) Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this 

order; and

3) Plaintiff’s motion in support of further discovery and to deny Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01908-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 12/02/14 Page 3 of 3