Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02197/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02197-10/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROMESH KANDA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2197 MCE GGH P

vs.

JAMES WALKER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed his second request for an extension of time to respond to

defendants’ interrogatories and request for production of documents. Good cause appearing, the

request will be granted. No further extensions of time will be granted.

On February 17, 2010, plaintiff filed objections to defendants’ notice of

deposition. Plaintiff first objects that defendants did not obtain leave of court to take his

deposition. The December 1, 2009, scheduling order provides that defendants may depose

plaintiff. See December 1, 2009, order, p. 5: 12-15. 

In his February 17, 2010, pleading, plaintiff also seeks a protective order to

require defendants to provide him with an interpreter at his deposition. Plaintiff alleges that he

does not speak English well enough and requires an interpreter who speaks Punjabi or Hindi. 

The court cannot order defendants to provide plaintiff with an interpreter, although it may be in

their best interests to do so. If plaintiff does not understand the questions he is being asked, he 

Case 2:09-cv-02197-MCE -GGH Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 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

may state that on the record at his deposition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time (Docket No. 37) is granted; 

2. Plaintiff is granted twenty-eight days from the date of this order in which to

respond to defendants’ request for production of documents and interrogatories. No further

extensions of time will be granted;

3. Plaintiff’s February 17, 2010, motion for a protective order (no. 33) is denied.

DATED: April 2, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

kan2197.po

Case 2:09-cv-02197-MCE -GGH Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 2