Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01104/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01104-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA ALLEN,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 1104 OWW WMW P 

vs. ORDER RE MOTIONS 

 (DOCUMENTS 176, 177, 182)

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

On August 3, 2007, Plaintiff Brenda Allen filed a motion to compel subpoena

responses, and noticed the motion for hearing on August 23, 2007. Plaintiff seeks to have

the motion to compel heard on the same date as a motion to extend time to respond to

discovery responses by non-parties California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (CDCR) and Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF). Plaintiff seeks

an order compelling subpoena responses by non-parties. The non-parties oppose the

application to shorten time.

The CDCR and CCWF non-parties oppose Plaintiff’s motion the ground that

Plaintiff’s motion is premature. They argue that the documents that Plaintiff seeks in her

motion to compel are the subject of their motion to extend time to respond to discovery

requests. Should that motion be granted, the non-parties would have a thirty day extension

of time to respond to the discovery requests at issue in the motion to compel. A timely

Case 1:05-cv-01104-OWW -GSA Document 186 Filed 08/21/07 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

2

response to the subpoenas would obviate the need for the motion to compel.

In support of their request for an extension of time to respond to the subpoenas, the

non-parties submit the declaration of Jennifer Marquez, counsel for non-party Defendants. 

The Court finds that, based upon the declaration of Jennifer Marquez, good cause exists

for a thirty day extension of time to respond to the subpoenas for production of documents

and deposition testimony of non-parties at issue. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion for extension of time to respond to discovery requests by nonparty Defendants is granted. Non-party Defendants are granted a thirty day extension of

time in which to respond to the ten subpoenas for production of documents and deposition

testimony of non-parties. 

2. Plaintiff’s application for an order shortening time is denied.

3. The motion to compel responses to subpoena requests is taken off

calendar. Should the non-party Defendants fail to timely respond to the subpoena

requests, counsel for Plaintiff may contact the Court to re-calendar the motion for hearing. 

Otherwise, the motion will be denied as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01104-OWW -GSA Document 186 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 2