Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01272/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01272-9/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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAWRENCE GEORGE HASH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. RALLOS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-1272 TLN AC 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 for a sixty-day extension of time to complete discovery and for 

defendants to justify their untimely discovery responses. ECF No. 51. 

 Plaintiff asserts that he served discovery requests on defendants on October 2, 2022, that 

responses were therefore due on November 16, 2022, and that he did not receive the responses 

until November 29, 2022. ECF No. 51 at 1-2. He seeks a sixty-day extension of the discovery 

deadline in order to have time to confer with defendants regarding any issues with their responses 

and to file a motion to compel. Id. at 2. He further requests that the court admonish defendants’ 

counsel if defendants do not justify their untimely responses. Id. at 3. 

The discovery and scheduling order in this case set the deadline for discovery, including 

the filing of motion to compel, as December 2, 2022. ECF No. 50 at 5. The order also provided 

that the parties were excused from the requirement that they confer or attempt to confer prior to 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 52 Filed 12/09/22 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 

bringing a discovery motion. Id. While the court appreciates plaintiff’s intention to attempt to 

confer with defendants, it is unnecessary for him to do so prior to bringing a motion to compel. 

Furthermore, it is unclear from the motion whether plaintiff has completed his review of the 

discovery responses or determined that any responses are deficient. Because it is unclear whether 

any discovery disputes requiring a motion to compel exist, and it is unnecessary for plaintiff to 

confer with defendants prior to filing a motion to compel if they do, the request for an extension 

of time will be granted in part. In the event plaintiff determines a motion to compel is necessary 

and requires additional time in which to file one, he may file a motion for a further extension of 

the deadline. 

With respect to plaintiff’s request that the court admonish defendants’ counsel if they do 

not justify defendants’ late discovery responses, the motion will be denied because plaintiff has 

not demonstrated that the responses were untimely. Based on the information provided by 

plaintiff, defendants responses were due on November 21, 2022, not November 16, 2022.1

 

Though plaintiff states that he did not receive the responses until November 29, 2022, he provides 

no information regarding when the responses were served. Presumably, defendants mailed their 

responses to plaintiff, making the date they were mailed the date of service, and the relevant date 

is that on which defendants served their responses, not the date on which they were received by 

plaintiff. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

1

 The forty-fifth day fell on Wednesday, November 16, 2022. However, the deadline was then 

extended an additional three days because plaintiff served his requests by mail and further 

extended until the next day that was not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, making the deadline 

Monday, November 21, 2022. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C) (when deadline falls on a Saturday, 

Sunday, or legal holiday, it is continued to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal 

holiday); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (when deadline is based on date of service and service is 

accomplished by mail, “3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 

6(a)”). 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 52 Filed 12/09/22 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 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time 

and to admonish defendants’ counsel (ECF No. 51) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall have 

thirty days from the service of this order to file any necessary motions to compel. In all other 

respects, the motion is DENIED. 

DATED: December 8, 2022 

 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 52 Filed 12/09/22 Page 3 of 3