Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00119/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00119-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS GOOLSBY, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG-PC

 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, SET 

ONE

(ECF No. 65.)

FORTY-FIVE DAY DEADLINE

On December 8, 2015, Defendants filed a request for a forty-five day extension of time 

to respond to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests. (ECF No. 65.) 

Defense counsel, Deputy Attorney General R. Lawrence Bragg (“Counsel”), requests an 

extension of time to enable him to confer with his clients regarding their responses to Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests. Counsel declares that this case was transferred to him to represent 

Defendants in this case on December 2, 2015. (Decl. of Counsel, ECF No. 65 at 3 ¶2.) In 

reviewing case materials, Counsel came across a letter from Plaintiff to his predecessor 

postmarked October 21, 2015, in which Plaintiff re-served Requests for Admissions, Requests 

for Production of Documents, and Interrogatories, Set One, propounded to Defendants Jordan, 

Uribe, Foster Plumlee, Lundy, Stainer, and Holland. (Id. ¶¶3-4.) In the letter, Plaintiff 

indicated that he would be amenable to additional time to respond to the discovery requests 

upon request. (Id. ¶3, Attachment 1.) Based on the date of the postmarked letter, Defendants’ 

Case 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG Document 68 Filed 12/10/15 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

responses to the discovery requests are due by December 8, 2015. (Id. ¶4.) Counsel makes this 

request not to delay the litigation, to prejudice Plaintiff, or for any other improper purpose. (Id.

¶5.) Counsel asserts that an extension of time would be preferable to serving objections in 

order to protect the rights of his clients. (Id. ¶6.)

Good cause having been presented to the court, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING 

THEREFOR, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants are GRANTED an extension of 

time until forty-five days from the date of service of this order, in which to respond to 

Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production of Documents, and 

Interrogatories, Set One, propounded to Defendants Jordan, Uribe, Foster Plumlee, Lundy, 

Stainer, and Holland, served upon Defendants on October 21, 2015.

The Court further notes that it is amenable to an informal telephonic conference to 

discuss any issues of disputes regarding discovery before or after Defendants serve their 

responses. The Court asks that the parties convene a telephonic conference before filing any 

motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2015 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG Document 68 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 2