Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02004/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02004-6/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

FREDERICK E. LEONARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. CASILLAS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-2004 WBS CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, has filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 41.) In the motion, plaintiff states that he mailed 

interrogatories and requests for admission to defendant Casillas’ counsel on January 18, 2020. 

(Id. at 1.) On March 11, 2020, he received a response from counsel, dated February 28, 2020,

advising that she had received his notice of service of discovery on January 23, 2020, but had not 

yet received his discovery requests. (Id.) Plaintiff further asserts that he has received discovery 

requests from Casillas and argues that he should not be required to respond to those requests until 

Casillas responds to his requests, as his requests were submitted first. (Id. at 1-2.)

As an initial matter, plaintiff must respond to defendant’s requests for discovery 

regardless of whether he served his requests first or whether he has received Casillas’ responses. 

Withholding discovery responses based on defendant’s failure to respond to discovery is not 

appropriate. With respect to plaintiff’s requests for discovery, it appears that defendant’s counsel 

Case 2:18-cv-02004-WBS-CKD Document 43 Filed 03/20/20 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

27

28

2

has not received them,

1

and it is unclear how plaintiff expects defendant to respond to the requests 

without knowing their contents. The motion to compel will therefore be denied. However, the 

discovery deadlines will be partially modified to allow plaintiff to re-serve his requests for 

discovery.2 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 41) is denied.

2. The deadline for serving discovery requests will be re-opened for the limited purpose 

of allowing plaintiff to re-serve his requests for discovery on defendant Casillas. 

3. Plaintiff shall have until April 10, 2020, to re-serve his requests for discovery on 

defendant Casillas.

4. Plaintiff may file any motions to compel discovery from defendant Casillas by June 9, 

2020.

Dated: March 19, 2020

13:leon2004.mtc

1

 Assuming the dates reflected in plaintiff’s motion are accurate, it is unclear why counsel waited 

over a month from the date she received notice that plaintiff had mailed requests, and nearly a 

month and half since the notice indicated requests had been mailed, to contact plaintiff about her 

failure to receive the requests, particularly when she had an ongoing issue with mail delivery.

2

 The current deadline for serving discovery requests was March 9, 2020. (ECF No. 36 at 5.)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-02004-WBS-CKD Document 43 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 2