Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01523/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01523-8/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEVONTE B. HARRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

L. ZAMUDIO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:09-cv-1523 LKK AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a request for a seven-day extension of time to file a motion for summary 

judgment. In light of the pendency of defendants’ September 24, 2013 motion for summary 

judgment, plaintiff will be permitted additional time to file a cross-motion for summary judgment 

along with his opposition to defendants’ motion. 

Also pending before the court is plaintiff’s August 5, 2013 motion to compel production 

of documents. ECF No. 62. Plaintiff sought further responses to his requests for production of 

documents (RFP) nos. 7 and 8 propounded upon defendant Forsterer, and further responses to 

RFP nos. 4, 5, 6 and 9 propounded upon defendant Walker. In opposition (ECF No. 64), 

defendants Forsterer and Walker indicate that they have supplemented their responses to these 

RFPs. Defendants contend that these supplemental responses have rendered plaintiff’s motion to 

compel further discovery moot. 

Defendants have provided their supplemental responses, which identify the documents 

Case 2:09-cv-01523-TLN-AC Document 70 Filed 10/04/13 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

that have now been provided to plaintiff. The court’s review of the motion and of defendants’ 

supplemental responses confirms that the supplemental responses and production resolve the 

discovery dispute. No further order of the court could enhance the supplemented responses. 

Moreover, plaintiff filed no reply contesting the adequacy of the supplemented discovery 

responses. The motion therefore will be denied as moot. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s September 23, 2013 motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 69) is 

enlarged and is granted; 

 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file any crossmotion for summary judgment and his opposition to defendants’ September 24, 2014 motion for 

summary judgment. 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further production of documents from defendants (ECF 

No. 62) is denied as moot. 

DATED: October 3, 2013 

AC:009/md 

harr1523.mtc+ 

Case 2:09-cv-01523-TLN-AC Document 70 Filed 10/04/13 Page 2 of 2