Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01746/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01746-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MCNEIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

LVN HAYES, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION TO 

COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO 

RENEWAL WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, (2) 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 

EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO REPLY, (3) 

GRANTING DEFENDANTS RAMAN AND 

SOTO’S MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF 

TIME TO SERVE RESPONSES, (4) 

DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, 

AND (5) VACATING DISCOVERY AND 

MOTION DEADLINES

(Docs. 77, 79, 86, 89, 91, 92, and 96)

I. Background

Plaintiff Michael McNeil, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 23, 2010. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants Hayes, Raman, Soto, 

Byers, Doe, and Rotman on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claims. 1

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his (1) interrogatories, 

set one, (2) requests for admission, set one, and (3) requests for the production of documents, set 

 

1 Defendants Hayes and Rotman have not been served and Defendant Doe has not been identified.

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 102 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 6
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

two. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Plaintiff also seeks the imposition of sanctions against Defendants Byers, 

Raman, and Soto. Id.

Defendant Byers filed an opposition on September 17, 2013, and Defendants Raman and 

Soto filed an opposition on September 27, 2013. On September 26, 2013, October 10, 2013, and 

October 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed motions seeking an extension of time to file a reply, and on 

October 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant Byers’ opposition. 

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply to Defendant Byers’ opposition is 

granted nunc pro tunc to October 10, 2013, and Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time to file 

a reply to Defendants Raman and Soto’s opposition are denied as moot in light of this order.2

II. Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission and Requests for Production 

of Documents

Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to his requests for admission, set one, and requests for 

the production of documents, set two. Plaintiff represents that the discovery requests at issue were 

served on July 7, 2013, while Defendants contend they were served on July 8, 2013. Regardless, 

Defendants’ responses were not required to be served by mail until Monday, August 26, 2013.3 

A. Defendant Byers

Defendant Byers timely served his responses on August 22, 2013. Plaintiff filed his 

motion to compel prematurely and it is now moot in light of Defendant Byers’ timely response.

The Court notes that in his reply, Plaintiff recasts his motion to compel as having been 

filed based on his dissatisfaction with Defendant Byer’s responses. (Doc. 93, Reply, 3:27-4:2.) 

However, it is clear from the contents of Plaintiff’s motion to compel and the attached exhibits 

that Plaintiff was seeking to compel initial responses to his RFAs and PODs. Plaintiff’s recharacterization of his motion is belied by the motion itself, and additionally, the service by mail 

date of August 22, 2013, cannot be reconciled with Plaintiff’s assertion in reply that he received 

 

2

Plaintiff’s motion to compel was premature in part and he failed to meet his burden in part. As a result, it is 

unnecessary for the Court to await his reply. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file a renewed motion to compel, as set 

forth herein. 

3

Pursuant to the discovery order, responding parties have forty-five days to serve their responses and Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 6(d) provides for three additional days for mailing. Whether service occurred on July 7, 2013, or on 

July 8, 2013, the deadline fell on the weekend, resulting in the service date of Monday, August 26, 2013. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 6(a)(1)(C).

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 102 Filed 11/07/13 Page 2 of 6
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

the responses on August 22, 2013. Plaintiff is cautioned that making any further 

misrepresentations to the Court will result in the imposition of sanctions against him.

B. Defendants Raman and Soto

Defendants Raman and Soto filed a timely motion seeking an extension of time up to and 

including October 6, 2013, within which to serve their responses to Plaintiff’s requests for 

admission, set one, and requests for the production of documents, set two. In as much as 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel was prematurely filed, it is denied on that ground. Defendants have 

shown good cause for their requested extension and it is granted, nunc pro tunc to October 6, 

2013. 

III. Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories

Next, Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to his interrogatories, set one. Pursuant to the 

Court’s order filed on June 4, 2013, Defendant Byers was required to serve supplemental 

responses on or before July 22, 2013, and Defendants Raman and Soto were required to serve 

responses on or before July 5, 2013. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 

A. Defendant Byers

Defendant Byers timely served his responses on July 2, 2013. Although Plaintiff states

that Defendant Byers objected to most of the interrogatories, it is not clear from Plaintiff’s motion 

which interrogatory responses, if any, are at issue. As Defendant Byers notes, Plaintiff’s motion 

addresses Defendants Raman and Soto almost exclusively. Plaintiff bears the burden of 

identifying which responses are in dispute and providing sufficient information so that Court can 

discern why he is challenging the responses. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied, 

without prejudice to renewal within thirty days.

B. Defendants Raman and Soto

On August 22, 2013, Defendants Raman and Soto sought an extension of time to October 

6, 2013, to serve their responses, and on October 4, 2013, Defendant Soto sought an extension of 

time to October 9, 2013, to serve her responses.

Defendants Raman and Soto should have filed their motion for an extension of time on or 

before the deadline to respond, and they are cautioned to avoid late filings in the future. Fed. R. 

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 102 Filed 11/07/13 Page 3 of 6
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

Civ. P. 6(b); Local Rule 144(d). However, having reviewed the motions for an extension of time,

Plaintiff’s motion to compel, and Defendants’ opposition, there is no indication that Defendants 

acted in bad faith, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion. Therefore, Defendants’ motions for an 

extension of time are granted, nunc pro tunc to October 6, 2013, and October 9, 2013. 

Plaintiff is granted thirty days within which to renew his motion to compel. At this 

juncture, Plaintiff should be in receipt of Defendants Raman and Soto’s responses. In his motion, 

Plaintiff shall identify which responses are in dispute and explain why the responses are 

insufficient. Once the Court has before it the requests and responses which are in dispute, it can 

reach the merits of Plaintiff’s motion to compel and provide the parties with a final resolution 

regarding Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set one.

4

 

IV. Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants Byers, Raman, and Soto to pay him $150.00 

for expenses incurred, and he seeks additional sanctions against them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

At this juncture, Plaintiff is not the prevailing party nor do circumstances justify an award 

of expenses, and his request is denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). Plaintiff is placed on notice that 

should he seek costs in a future motion, he is required to demonstrate he actually incurred the 

expenses for which reimbursement is sought.

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for additional sanctions, sanctions are not warranted at 

this juncture. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). Defendant Byers did not fail to comply with any discovery 

orders, and while Plaintiff’s disagreement with some of Defendant’s responses may support a

renewed motion to compel, it does not support an award of sanctions against Defendant Byers. Id. 

With regard to Defendants Raman and Soto, they failed to file a timely motion for an 

extension of time, but there is no indication they acted in bad faith. To the contrary, Plaintiff has 

mischaracterized much of their conduct. In light of his pro se status, the Court will accord 

Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt as to his motivation, but he is now informed that there is no 

support for his accusation that Defendants Raman and Soto, through their counsel, were 

 

4

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories, filed in compliance with 

the Court’s order of June 4, 2013. The Court will resolve that motion in conjunction with Plaintiff’s renewed motion 

to compel responses to his interrogatories, set one. 

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 102 Filed 11/07/13 Page 4 of 6
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

5

attempting to lure him into a trap and preclude him from obtaining discovery. (Doc. 79, Motion, 

10:1-14.) 

It is common practice for parties to attempt to informally resolve discovery disputes, 

including agreeing to extensions of time, without court intervention.5 Given how overburdened 

the Eastern District of California is, the Court encourages the parties to attempt to informally 

resolve discovery issues before seeking judicial intervention. While Local Rule 144(a) would 

have required that Defendants’ proposed stipulation be submitted for approval, the Court routinely 

approves such stipulations. Furthermore, Defendants’ counsel did not violate Local Rule 144(a) in

this instance. Because Plaintiff declined to stipulate to an extension, there existed no stipulation 

requiring Court approval. 

Counsel’s attempts to reach an agreement with Plaintiff regarding deadlines to serve 

discovery responses were neither inappropriate nor sanctionable. See Mount Hope Church v. Bash 

Back!, 705 F.3d 418, 426 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[S]anctions should not result from normal advocacy.”) 

In sum, the Court finds that sanctions are not justified under the circumstances and 

Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A), (C); Mount Hope Church, 705 F.3d at

425-26.

V. Scheduling Order Deadlines

Finally, in light of this order, the discovery deadline, which was November 5, 2013, will be 

extended as is necessary to bring final resolution to all discovery requests previously served by 

Plaintiff and to Plaintiff’s additional interrogatories, should the Court grant his pending motion. 

The Court will set an appropriate deadline in due course.

The deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions, set for January 13, 2014, is vacated. A 

new deadline will be set once the outstanding discovery disputes have been resolved.

///

///

///

 

5 The discovery and scheduling order relieved the parties of what would otherwise be a requirement that they meet and 

confer, or attempt to meet and confer, in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute without court action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)1).

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 102 Filed 11/07/13 Page 5 of 6
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

6

VI. Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on August 29, 2013, is DENIED, without 

prejudice to renewal within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply to Defendant Byers’ 

opposition is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc to October 10, 2013, and his motions for an extension of 

time to file a reply to Defendants Raman and Soto’s opposition are DENIED as moot;

3. Defendants Raman and Soto’s motion for an extension of time to serve responses to 

Plaintiff’s interrogatories, filed August 22, 2013, is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc to October 6, 2013, 

and Defendant Soto’s motion for a second extension of time to serve responses to Plaintiff’s 

interrogatories, filed October 4, 2013, is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc to October 9, 2013;

4. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED; and

5. The discovery and pretrial dispositive motion deadlines are VACATED pending 

further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 102 Filed 11/07/13 Page 6 of 6