Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331-26/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 E. STEARNS,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. FLORES, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 6331 LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND

DISCOVERY DEADLINE (Doc. 415) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND

TIME FOR FILING OPPOSITION NUNC PRO

TUNC (Doc. 431)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

FILED JULY 10, 2006 (Doc. 416) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WRIT AD

TESTIFICANDUM (Doc. 423.) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

FILED AUGUST 21, 2006, AS UNTIMELY

(Doc. 429) 

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

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),

the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

On July 10, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline and Motion

to Compel. (Doc. 415, 416) 

Plaintiff filed a pleading titled Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum on

July 19, 2006. (Doc. 423.) 

On August 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed a second Motion to Compel. (Doc. 429.) On August

25, 2006, Defendants moved for an extension of time to file an Opposition to the Motion to

Compel nunc pro tunc. (Doc. 431.) 

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 435 Filed 09/28/06 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

A. MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE (Doc. 415)

According to this Court’s Order issued November 16, 2005, all discovery, including

Motions to Compel must have been filed by July 11, 2006. Plaintiff moved to extend the

discovery deadline on July 10, 2006. In this pleading, Plaintiff states that he has not had

sufficient time to get all of the information he needs. However, Plaintiff does not state what

further information is needed and why. Plaintiff requests that the deadline be extended because

he has filed a Motion to Compel and seeks the additional time for the purpose of giving

Defendant’s time to provide the information sought in the Motion to Compel. 

According to the Court record, Plaintiff has had since November 16, 2005, almost a year,

to conduct discovery. The Court notes that much of the information Plaintiff has attempted to

obtain in the past concerns the issue of gang validation which is not longer part of this case. 

Further, an extension of the discovery deadline for the purpose of giving Defendant’s time to

comply with an Order of the Court compelling discovery is unnecessary. Should the Court grant

the Motion to Compel, it need not extend the discovery deadline but only order that the responses

be provided to the Plaintiff within whatever time the Court deems is necessary. As such, a

Motion to Extend the discovery deadline for this purpose is unnecessary. Further, as Plaintiff has

failed to make a showing of good cause to extend the discovery deadline, his request will be

DENIED. 

B. MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. 416) AND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR

OPPOSITION (Doc. 431)

Plaintiff also submitted a Motion to Compel on July 10, 2006. Defendants filed a Motion to

Extend the time for filing an Opposition nunc pro tunc, and submitted the Opposition on August

25, 2006. The request to extend the time for filing an Opposition is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant Flores’ responses to Plaintiff’s Fourth Set of Request

for Admissions. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s discovery requests were not served on the

Defendant within the allotted time frames set forth by the Court in the Discovery and Scheduling

Order issued November 16, 2005. In addition, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel such responses was

previously addressed by this Court on July 13, 2006, and hence, the Motion is duplicative. 

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 435 Filed 09/28/06 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

3

The Discovery and Scheduling Order issued November 16, 2005, specifically provided that

all discovery requests must be served at least forty-five days in advance of the discovery

deadline. This is to provide the responding party with sufficient time before expiration of the

discovery deadline to respond. 

Here, Plaintiff did not serve the Fourth Set of Requests for Admissions on Defendant Flores

until June 21, 2006, June 25, 2006, and June 26, 2006. However, the latest time Plaintiff could

have served these requests was May 27, 2006. Accordingly, the Requests served are untimely in

that they were served on the opposing party beyond the 45 days set forth in the Court’s Discovery

Order. 

In addition, the Plaintiff’s Motion appears to have already been addressed by the Court. The

instant Motion to Compel concerns a Fourth Set of Requests for Admissions propounded on

Defendant Flores. However, a Court order issued on July 13, 2006, addressed a Motion to

Compel responses propounded on Defendant Flores in a Fourth Set of Requests for Admissions.

Thus, the instant Motion will be DENIED as duplicative. 

Defendants state, in their Opposition, that when Plaintiff propounded the duplicative Fourth

Set of Requests for Admissions on Defendant Flores he submitted requests in addition to those

that were previously submitted. Defendant then addresses each of these requests in their

Opposition. However, because the Fourth Set of Requests for Admissions was already addressed

by a previous Motion to Compel and they were served on opposing counsel beyond the time

allotted in the Discovery Order, the Court will DENY the Motion to Compel as DUPLICATIVE

and on the basis that the requests served were untimely. 

C. MOTION FOR WRIT AD TESTIFICANDUM (Doc. 423)

On July 19, 2006, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion for Writ Ad Testificandum.” In

this pleading, Plaintiff seeks an Order compelling the Department of Corrections to bring certain

witnesses to the Court for jury trial. 

The instant case has not been set for trial. Should the Court set the matter for trial, an Order

informing Plaintiff of procedures for trial, including the process for obtaining his witnesses, will

issue. Plaintiff is not required to submit a Motion to that effect. In any event, as the case has not

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 435 Filed 09/28/06 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 Even with application of the mailbox rule, Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely as it was signed on August 14, 1

2006, after the expiration of the discovery deadline. (Doc. 429 - Declaration of Plaintiff.) 

4

been set for trial, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 

D. MOTION TO COMPEL FILED AUGUST 21, 2006 (Doc. 429) 

On August 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Compel. Here, Plaintiff seeks to

Compel Defendant Flores the production of “replies for copying and inspecting to Discovery

Request Documents dated: 5-25-06, 6-21-06, 6-25-06, 6-25-06, 6-26-06, 6-29-06, 6-30-06, 7-21-

06, 7-30-06.” 

As noted above, the deadline for the completion of discovery, including all motions to

compel, expired on July 11, 2006. The instant Motion was filed on August 21, 2006.1

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED as untimely. 

E. ORDER

Based on the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline is DENIED; 

2. The Motion for an extension of time to file an Opposition to the Motion to

Compel filed on July 10, 2006, is GRANTED nunc pro tunc;

3. The Motion to Compel filed on July 10, 2006, is DENIED as duplicative and as

untimely on the basis that Plaintiff submitted his requests beyond the time allotted

in the Court’s Discovery Order;

4. The Motion for Writ Ad Testificandum is DENIED as unnecessary; and 

5. The Motion to Compel filed August 21, 2006, is DENIED as untimely. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 435 Filed 09/28/06 Page 4 of 4