Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331-23/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT STEARNS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLORES, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 6331 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND

DISCOVERY DEADLINE (Doc. 400- 1) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 400-2)

 Scott Stearns (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 4, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion to extend the discovery deadline and a Motion

to Compel discovery. In his Motion to extend the deadline, Plaintiff states that an extension is

necessary because Deputy Attorney General made improper actions which were admitted by

Deputy Attorney General Picciano in her request to delay trial in order to reply to discovery

requests. Plaintiff’s basis for his request does not concern in any way his need for certain

discovery. Plaintiff seeks to use whatever impropriety he believes occurred as grounds for

extending the discovery deadline, which does not expire until July 11, 2006. See, Court Doc.

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 407 Filed 05/25/06 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

344. As the deadline is nowhere near expiration and Plaintiff provides no good cause for the

extension, the request is DENIED. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Although Plaintiff declares that he has

attempted to meet and confer with the Deputy Attorney General assigned to the case, Plaintiff

also states that he is seeking to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of

documents, however, he provides no detailed information as to why certain answers or refusals to

produce documents are inadequate. Although Plaintiff attaches the Discovery responses, it is not

the Court’s responsibility to review all of them and make a determination on Plaintiff’s behalf

why certain ones may or may not be insufficient. Plaintiff’s Motion is therefore, purely

conclusory and as such, neither the Court or the Defendants can adequately respond to the

Motion. 

Moreover, the Court notes that Defendants most recently timely moved for an extension

of time to respond to Plaintiff’s fourth set of requests for production of documents, which the

Court granted by separate order. Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents that

Defendants have not yet had the opportunity to respond to is thus, premature. In any event,

because Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is lacking in specificity, the Motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 407 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2