Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02291/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02291-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEVON D. GRAHAM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2291 LKK GGH P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to reconsider a discovery order

issued by Magistrate Judge Hollows. In this case, plaintiff alleges that defendants used excessive

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment during a cell extraction. Plaintiff seeks

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his motion to extend the discovery deadlines.

Dkt. No. 31. The standard for motions to reconsider is that orders shall be upheld unless “clearly

erroneous or contrary to law.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303(f). 

Based upon the record available in this case, the court cannot determine if the discovery

order at issue was clearly erroneous. Nonetheless, because (1) plaintiff has indicated that

defendants have not produced any documents or other materials in response to his discovery

requests and (2) defendants have indicated that they have in their possession responsive

documents and other materials, the court grants plaintiff’s motion in part. The court finds that

Case 2:07-cv-02291-CKD Document 37 Filed 05/04/10 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

allowing plaintiff discovery so that he is able to try his case serves the interests of justice and

judicial economy. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production shall be propounded to

defendants within ninety (90) days of the issuance of this order;

(2) Defendants shall respond to plaintiff’s requests within forty-five (45) days of their

receipt of such requests; and

(3) The Magistrate Judge shall amend the scheduling order in this case as necessary to

reflect these discovery modifications.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-02291-CKD Document 37 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 2