Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02560/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02560-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARRY J. WILLIBY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2560 RRB JFM P

vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 5, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery and

for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Plaintiff contends that on April 13, 2007, he served

defendants with interrogatories, a request for admissions, and request for production of

documents, and that defendants have failed to respond to any of the discovery requests. Plaintiff

seeks an order compelling defendants to respond and payment of $450.00 in monetary sanctions.

Defendants oppose the motion on the ground that there is no proof that plaintiff’s discovery

requests were properly served by mail on defendants on April 13, 2007.

Plaintiff has attached to his motion a copy of each of the discovery requests at

issue. Appended to each request is a certificate of service signed on April 13, 2007 by an

individual identified as Felton E. Maxie. Defendants have presented evidence that they did not

Case 2:04-cv-02560-JAM -JFM Document 45 Filed 08/15/07 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

2

receive the discovery requests at issue until June 11, 2007, and that the certificates of service

appended to the discovery requests received on that date were unsigned. See Declaration in

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, filed June 25, 2006, at 2, and Attachment

1 thereto. With his reply brief, in relevant part plaintiff presents several receipts from a post

office in Oakland, California. None of the receipts presented are for mailing on April 13, 2007. 

See Ex. A to Plaintiff’s Reply, filed July 5, 2007.

The court makes no findings with respect to plaintiff’s contention that he properly

mailed the discovery requests at issue to defendants on April 13, 2007. The court finds that

defendants have presented sufficient evidence that they did not receive plaintiff’s discovery

requests until June 11, 2007. For that reason, plaintiff’s motion to compel and for sanctions will

be denied. The August 3, 2007 deadline for completion of discovery set in this court’s April 12,

2007 scheduling order notwithstanding, defendants will be directed to respond within forty-five

days from the date of this order to the discovery requests they received on June 11, 2007. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 5, 2007 motion to compel and for sanctions is denied;

2. Within forty-five days from the date of this order defendants shall serve

responses to the discovery requests they received from plaintiff on June 11, 2007. 

DATED: August 15, 2007.

12

will2560.mtc

Case 2:04-cv-02560-JAM -JFM Document 45 Filed 08/15/07 Page 2 of 2