Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077-22/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

LOUIS FRANCIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

H.L. BRYANT, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5077 REC SMS P 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY

DEADLINE (Doc. 89) 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION THAT DEFENDANTS

FILED AN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION

TO COMPEL (Doc. 88.) 

Louis Frances (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed two separate Motions for Reconsideration of Orders

previously issued by this Court. First, Plaintiff moved the Court to reconsider an Order finding

that the Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel on August 29, 2006. 

(Doc. 88.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Reconsideration an Order denying extension of the

discovery deadline. (Doc. 89.) The Court will address each Motion separately. 

A. Reconsideration Standard

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 109 Filed 02/20/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Cir. 1983) (en banc). The Local Rules provide that when filing a motion for reconsideration, a

party show that the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist

or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local

Rule 78-230(k)(3). 

B. Motion for Reconsideration of Finding that Defendants filed an Opposition

Plaintiff contends that on October 4, 2006, this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel that indicated that the Defendants filed an Opposition to the Motion to

Compel on August 29, 2006, and that Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Opposition on September 8,

2006. Plaintiff states that he did not receive such an Opposition and thus, the Court should

reconsider its Order denying the Motion to Compel. 

According to the Court Docket, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel on August 29, 2006. 

(Doc. 58.) Plaintiff is correct that Defendants did not file an Opposition to the Motion to Compel

as indicated in the Court Order. However, the Defendants did file an Opposition to the request to

extend the discovery deadline on August 29, 2006. (Doc. 56.) In that Motion, Defendants

indicated that the responses would be served by September 11, 2006. Id. These responses were

the very responses Plaintiff was seeking to compel in his Motion to Compel also filed on August

29, 2006. Thus, although Defendants did not formally file an Opposition to the Motion to

Compel, the Opposition to the Motion to Extend the Discovery deadline addressed the substance

of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. As a result, the Court issued its Order resolving both the

Motion to Compel and Motion to Extend the Discovery deadline in one Order. (Doc. 71.) That

the Court mistakenly stated in its Order that Defendants filed a formal Opposition to the Motion

to Compel is of no consequence. Even were it of significance, Plaintiff moved to withdraw his

Motion to Compel on interrogatories on October 12, 2006. (Doc. 78-2.) Thus, the fact that

Plaintiff was not served with an Opposition that was not filed by Defendants does not affect

whether this Court should reconsider an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, a Motion

he later sought to withdraw. Accordingly, Plaintiff has presented no new facts warranting

reconsideration of the Order denying the Motion to Compel issued on October 5, 2006, and the

Motion is DENIED.

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 109 Filed 02/20/07 Page 2 of 4
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

B. Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Extension of Discovery Deadline

Plaintiff also seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying his request to extend the

discovery deadline also issued on October 5, 2006. Plaintiff states that the Court’s Order

indicated that Plaintiff’s only reason for requesting to extend the discovery deadline was because

Plaintiff had not received responses to the Requests for interrogatories and that this is untrue.

Plaintiff states that he needed to extend the discovery deadline so that he could move to compel

compliance with subpoenas in the event the non-parties did not comply. Plaintiff misunderstands

this Court’s Order dated October 5, 2006. 

In that Order, the Court informed Plaintiff that the discovery deadline was extended only

to allow Plaintiff to propound subpoenas on the non-parties to the action. Despite that initial

extension of the discovery deadline, the Plaintiff propounded further interrogatories on the

Defendants. When Plaintiff moved to extend the discovery deadline, he based that request on the

fact that he had not received the responses to the interrogatories served on the Defendants. 

Because the Defendants had informed the Court on August 29, 2006, in the Opposition to the

Motion to Extend the discovery deadline, that the responses to the interrogatories were to be

served by September 11, 2006, and the date of the Court’s Order resolving the Motion to Compel

responses to interrogatories and the Motion to Extend the Discovery deadline was October 5,

2006, the Court saw no need to further extend the discovery deadline with respect to any

discovery other than the discovery sought from non-parties and approved by the Court. 

Plaintiff is correct, however, that his Motion to extend the discovery deadline also

indicated the more time was needed with regard to the subpoenas served on the non-parties. 

However, the Court’s Order only addressed the request with respect to any interrogatories served

on the Defendants. In light of this oversight, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s Request for

Reconsideration with respect to extending the discovery deadline (as it applies to non-party

subpoenas only) and will re-set the discovery deadline below. Plaintiff’s Motion to extend that

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 109 Filed 02/20/07 Page 3 of 4
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

The Court received the pleading on August 28, 2006, however, Plaintiff signed the Motion on August 23, 1

2006. Upon application of the mailbox rule, Plaintiff’s submission of the Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline

is timely. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2385 (1988); 

4

deadline for the purpose of completing discovery on non-parties was filed on August 23, 2006,1

and is timely. 

D. Order

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order issued October 5, 2006, and

stating that the Defendants filed an Opposition to the Motion to Compel is

DENIED; 

2. The Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order issued October 5, 2006,

denying the extension of the discovery deadline is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request insofar as he requests

that the Court extend the discovery deadline to conduct discovery on the

Defendants in this action. The Court GRANTS the Motion insofar as it seeks to

extend the discovery deadline with regard to the subpoenas issued on the nonparties to the action. 

3. As the Court’s Order issued October 5, 2006, only resolved Plaintiff’s request to

extend the discovery deadline as it pertained to discovery on the Defendants

named in the action, the Court will not vacate that Order and will instead extend

the discovery deadline with regard to non-party subpoenas in this Order nun pro

tunc.

4. The Discovery Deadline as it pertains to discovery on non-parties only shall

conclude on JANUARY 19, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 109 Filed 02/20/07 Page 4 of 4