Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331-21/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

SCOTT STEARNS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLORES,

Defendant.

 /

CV F 00 6331 AWI LJO P 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

SERVE DISCOVERY RESPONSES (Doc. 382.) 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL

(Docs. 386, 395.) 

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

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 6, 2005, the Court

issued a Scheduling and Discovery Order setting a discovery deadline of November 16, 2005. 

On March 3, 2006, Defendants moved for an extension of time to serve discovery

responses. Counsel for Defendant states that she was recently assigned responsibility for this

case and the status of the discovery responses was not made clear to her. Thus, Counsel had to

review the entire case file to determine what discovery was outstanding. After reviewing the file,

Counsel learned that the responses to the third set of admissions, consisting of 158 requests, was

outstanding. In addition, Plaintiff served a fourth set of discovery requests in December of 2005. 

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 398 Filed 03/31/06 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

Upon review of those requests, Counsel learned that some of the requests were duplicative of

previously made requests and that some of the responses required further work. Plaintiff filed a

fifth set in January of this year consisting of 56 more interrogatories. Defendants request an

extension of time of 45 days from the date of the request to provide a response to Plaintiff’s

fourth requests for production of documents, admissions and interrogatories. In addition,

Defendants seek sixty (60) additional days to complete and serve the responses to the other

outstanding discovery requests. 

On March 13, 2006, Plaintiff opposed the Motion for an extension of time. Plaintiff

asserts that granting the extension of time will “cut off [his] search for evidence/proof.” Plaintiff

further threatens that if the Court grants the request, he will appeal the issue to the Ninth Circuit. 

Plaintiff argues further that Defendant has not made any attempt to comply with Rule 37 in

seeking this extension and thus, it should be denied. 

As a preliminary matter, the Court will not act in any manner dictated by a party upon the

threat of an appeal. A grant or a denial of any motion is made based on the law and/or a showing

of good cause. Here, the Court has reviewed Defendant’s request and finds good cause for the

extension of time. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, granting Defendant time to respond to the

numerous and perhaps duplicative responses to discovery propounded does not interfere with

Plaintiff’s search for information for were the request denied, Plaintiff would not receive the

responses he seeks. The Court also reminds Plaintiff that the manner in which he has litigated

this case has contributed to the need for additional time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery as well

as any delay of the case. 

As noted by Defendant, Plaintiff’s third set of admissions consisted of 158 requests, the

fourth set of discovery consisted of 35 interrogatories, 52 requests for production of documents,

and 155 requests for admissions, some of these requests appear to be identical to those made in

the third set. The fifth set of discovery consists of 56 interrogatories, and a seventh set consists

of 25 requests for production of documents, 56 interrogatories and 166 requests for admissions. 

Despite the fact that Plaintiff’s requests exceed the limits imposed by the Rules of Civil

Procedure, Defendants have made every attempt to respond to Plaintiff’s requests by seeking

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 398 Filed 03/31/06 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

1Docs. 318, 379, 376, 213, 205, 113.

2Docs. 392, 375, 189, 10.

3

time where additional time was and is needed. Given Counsel for Defendant’s circumstances

and the overwhelming number of requests propounded, the extension of time serves to benefit

Plaintiff, not harm him. With respect to any delay, this Court again notes the size of the record in

this case. To date the case file has almost four hundred documents. Plaintiff has filed 12

Motions to Compel, many related discovery motions, repeated Notices of Appeal on nonappealable orders,1

 Motions for the appointment of counsel,2 at least two Motions for Temporary

Restraining Orders, three Motions for Contempt, 8 “Informative Motions,” 4 Motions for

Summary Judgment, 2 Motions for Pitchess Review, in addition to Motions for Status

Conference, emergency settlement, to file documents, to amend and many others. In light of the

above, any delay of the case is largely attributable to Plaintiff. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendants have not complied with Rule 37 in

making this Motion, Rule 37 is inapplicable to a request for an extension of time to respond to

discovery requests. The provision Plaintiff seeks to apply to Defendant concerns compliance

with Rule 37 in making a motion to compel discovery. To date, only Plaintiff had made such a

motion. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel, although the Court has repeatedly informed

Plaintiff of the requirements of Rule 37, Plaintiff has again failed to comply. Even were the

Court to disregard the requirements of Rule 37, Plaintiff’s Motions would be denied. 

First, Plaintiff’s Motion filed on March 1, 2005, concerns the very discovery for which

Defendants have requested an extension of time. Thus, Defendants have not refused or failed to

respond but only require additional time to respond. As noted above, given the sheer volume of

discovery propounded on Defendant by Plaintiff and the fact that much of it may be duplicative

of that previously answered, more time is warranted. Plaintiff’s practice of duplicating pleadings

is evidenced by the next Motion to Compel filed on March 22, 2005. This “Motion” consists of

only one page and, with the exception of the scratched out date, is merely a photocopy of the first

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 398 Filed 03/31/06 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

4

page of the Motion previously filed on March 1, 2005. 

Plaintiff further fails to delineate in either Motion what questions he has asked Defendant,

what the response was and why the response is inadequate. Plaintiff merely complains generally

that he has not received discovery and then attaches a copy of Defendant’s response to the

discovery. The Court will not review the responses and make a determination as to whether the

response is adequate or inadequate on his behalf. Should Plaintiff seek to compel certain

discovery, he must be specific as to each request made, the response and the reasons why the

response was inadequate or insufficient. Plaintiff is reminded that merely stating certain

information or items are “relevant” is insufficient. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Defendant’s Motion for an Extension of time to serve Discovery Responses is

GRANTED. Defendant is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc, forty-five (45) days from

the date of service fo this Order to SERVE the responses to Plaintiff’s Fourth

Requests for Production of documents, admissions and interrogatories. 

Defendant is also GRANTED sixty (60) days from the date of service of this

Order to serve responses to Plaintiff’s remaining discovery sets five through

seven. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel are DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 398 Filed 03/31/06 Page 4 of 4