Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06069/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06069-20/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

KORY HUNZIKER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

D. ADAMS, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 03-6069 OWW DLB P 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES

[DOC #99]

Discovery Cut-off Date: May 10, 2007

Dispositive Motion Deadline: July 10,

2007

I. Background

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint,

filed November 2, 2004, against defendants Adams, Yates, Espinosa and Cuevas for supervisory

liability and against Jennings, Cunningham and Burnias for failing to protect plaintiff from serious

harm, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to

compel production of documents by defendants Burnias, Cunningham and Jennings. 

In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that Jennings, Cunningham and Burnias 

 failed to protect him from physical abuse in violation of the Eighth Amendment on November 29,

2002 when they intentionally and deliberately released two known gang affiliates of the Fresno

Bulldogs into the day room who were armed with home made weapons. Plaintiff contends that he

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 117 Filed 03/08/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

and another white inmate were attacked, violently assaulted and stabbed repeatedly. 

On July 25, 2005, plaintiff served his first request for production of documents on

defendants. On October 11, 2005, defendants responded by interposing objections and producing

some documents. On November 10, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses. On

May 30, 2006, the Court issued a ruling granting the motion in part and requiring defendants to

produce some of the requested documents.

On July 11, 2006, plaintiff filed the present motion to compel seeking documents identified

in an Exhibit to his motion. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on August 3, 2006 and

plaintiff filed a reply on September 6, 2006 as well as an amended motion to compel. Defendants

submitted an opposition to the amended motion on September 15, 2006 and plaintiff submitted a

reply on October 10, 2006.

 It is not clear to the Court from plaintiffs submissions, which discovery requests he seeks to

compel. Attached to plaintiff’s motions are Exhibits listing documents which appear to be similar to

the requests previously ruled on by this court. However, there is no reference to previous discovery

requests. It is also unclear whether plaintiff contends that defendants failed to comply with the

Court’s May 30, 2006 Order, whether he seeks reconsideration of that Order or whether he is moving

to compel documents not discussed in the May 30, 2006 Order. Unclear as well is whether plaintiff

seeks documents that are not part of a previous discovery request. 

For these reasons, the Court HEREBY DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel, without

prejudice. Within 30 days of this Order, plaintiff shall file a second amended motion to compel. 

Plaintiff must clearly state the documents which are at issue with specific reference to the discovery

request which originally sought the document. It is important that plaintiff describe the documents

in the same way they are described in the discovery request and reference the request number. To

the extent plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on particular documents, he must

so specify. To the extent any of the requested documents have not been the subject of a previous

discovery request, plaintiff should serve a specific discovery request on defendants. The Court will

extend the deadlines in this case to accommodate the parties’ apparent difficulty in resolving this

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 117 Filed 03/08/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

discovery matter.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents, filed July 11,

2006 and amended September 6, 2006 is HEREBY DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an

amended motion in conformance with this Order within 30 days. Defendants should file any

opposition to the motion within 10 days. The deadline for completion of all discovery is hereby

extended to May 10, 2007 and the deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is extended to July

10, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 7, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 117 Filed 03/08/07 Page 3 of 3