Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00553/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00553-1/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHN G. MENDOZA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

S. PICKETT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-0553-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, has filed four discovery-related motions (ECF Nos. 17-20). Defendants oppose 

the motions. ECF No. 21. For the reasons stated below, the motions are denied. 

In the first motion, titled, “motion for discovery,” plaintiff filed a request for production of 

documents. ECF No. 17. Discovery requests, however, shall only be filed with the court if they 

are at issue. See E.D. Cal. Local Rules 250.2-250.4. At this time, there is no court proceeding 

that requires the court’s review of plaintiff’s discovery requests. To the extent plaintiff intended 

to serve defendants with his discovery requests by filing them with the court, the approach is 

improper. More significant, however, is that the deadline for serving requests for written 

discovery previously expired on October 11, 2019, rendering plaintiff’s requests, dated December 

5, 2019, untimely. See ECF No. 15 at 4. For these reasons, the motion (ECF No. 17) is denied. 

///// 

Case 2:18-cv-00553-WBS-JDP Document 22 Filed 02/06/20 Page 1 of 3
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 

 In two other motions, plaintiff seeks to depose defendants by written question, specifically 

citing to Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF Nos. 18, 20. Plaintiff is thus 

aware that Rule 31 outlines the procedures to be followed when seeking to depose by written 

question and that leave of court is not required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 31. Plaintiff has not complied 

with those procedures (e.g., sending notice to defendants and the officer taking the deposition, 

and providing an exact a list of questions), and the time for doing so has now passed. See ECF 

No. 15 at 4 (“All requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31 . . . shall be served not later 

than October 11, 2019.”). For these reasons, these motions (ECF Nos. 18, 20) are also denied. 

Plaintiff also filed a “motion for an order compelling discovery,” seeking to compel 

defendants to respond to discovery requests that plaintiff served on November 5, 2019. ECF No. 

19 at 4. Plaintiff’s motion is denied because the discovery at issue was not timely served in 

advance of the October 11, 2019 deadline. To the extent plaintiff seeks to modify the discovery 

and scheduling order by way of this motion, it too is denied. Without elaboration, plaintiff states 

that the following portion of the scheduling order was “confusing and contradictory” (id.): 

The parties may conduct discovery until December 20, 2019. Any motions 

necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for 

discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 shall be served not later 

than October 11, 2019. 

ECF No. 15 at 4. Plaintiff’s motions and untimely discovery requests evince an understanding of 

the Rules governing written discovery that are referenced in the October 11, 2019 deadline. See 

ECF No. 19 at 4 (“Plaintiff submitted these interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure”); id. at 7 and 10 (citing to Rules 33 and 34 in his requests for 

production and interrogatories); ECF No. 20 at 1 (moving the “court for an order pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 31 for Deposition upon written question”). Accordingly, 

plaintiff’s apparent objection to the discovery and scheduling order as “confusing and 

contradictory” is not well-taken and belied by his own filings. As defendants note, if plaintiff had 

been confused about the applicable deadlines, he could have demonstrated diligence by timely 

seeking clarification as to what the October 11, 2019 deadline meant. ECF No. 21 at 3. He failed 

to take any such action. Thus, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for modifying the 

Case 2:18-cv-00553-WBS-JDP Document 22 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 3
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 

discovery and scheduling order and this motion is also denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s “motion for discovery” (ECF No. 17) is DENIED; 

2. Plaintiff’s “motion[s] for deposition [by written question]” (ECF Nos. 18, 20) are 

DENIED; and 

3. Plaintiff’s “motion for an order compelling discovery” (ECF No. 19) is DENIED. 

DATED: February 6, 2020. 

 

Case 2:18-cv-00553-WBS-JDP Document 22 Filed 02/06/20 Page 3 of 3