Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750-17/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

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

ROBERTO M. GARCIA, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MATTHEW M. JUAREZ, JR.,

 Defendant.

1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER

OF NOVEMBER 2, 2015

(ECF No. 52.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO 

PROVIDE DISCOVERY RESPONSES

I. BACKGROUND

Roberto M. Garcia, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 8, 2012, Plaintiff 

filed the Complaint commencing this action. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint, filed on June 14, 2013, against defendant Sergeant Matthew M. 

Juarez, Jr. (“Defendant”) for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 

(ECF No. 11.) 

On November 30, 2015, Defendant filed a request for extension of time to comply with 

the Court’s order issued on November 2, 2015. (ECF No. 52.)

II. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Defendant seeks an extension of time to comply with the Court’s order of November 2, 

2015 (ECF No. 49), which granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel of April 20, 2015 (ECF No. 41) 

 

1 On May 9, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims from this action, based 

on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 19.)

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 55 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 3
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

and required Defendant to provide further discovery responses within thirty days. Defendant 

requests an extension due to: (1) the press of business; (2) the Thanksgiving holiday; (3) 

defense counsel’s office having been short staffed; and (4) the discovery that there was a 

calendaring error concerning the deadline to respond to the Court’s order.

Defendant Juarez’s request is not well taken. Defendant filed his request only a few 

days before his discovery responses were due. In other words, Defendant has chosen to not 

comply with the Court’s order and asked for permission when it was already too late to comply. 

Moreover, Defendant’s reasons for the extension of time, including “press of business” and a 

calendaring error, are not convincing. (ECF No. 52 at 3 ¶2.) The Court notes that Defendant 

has engaged outside counsel, who is presumed to have time and ability to litigate the cases he 

has taken on. Additionally, Defendant does not respond to the Court's order for a declaration 

explaining what steps he has taken to search for responsive documents. The Court again draws 

Defendant's attention to the Police Officer’s Bill of Rights, California Government Code § 

3300 et seq., which allows an officer access to all of its personnel files. See California 

Government Code § 3306.5 (“Each employer shall keep each public safety officer's personnel 

file or a true and correct copy thereof, and shall make the file or copy thereof available within a 

reasonable period of time after a request therefor by the officer.”). At this point, the Court is 

not convinced that Defendant has done anything at all to comply with his discovery obligations, 

imposed originally by Plaintiff's requests and then confirmed by the Court's order. This comes 

after the Court already noted that it had concerns about Defendant's good faith in complying 

with his obligations in this case.2 

Given that Defendant Juarez has already declined to comply with the Court's order, the 

Court will reluctantly extend the time to comply by thirty days. No further extensions will be 

 

2

“Defendant’s use of only boilerplate objections and failure to produce any documents 

whatsoever makes the Court question Defendant’s good faith in responding to the discovery requests. This 

conclusion is supported by Defendant’s discussion of the meet and confer requirements. It appears that Plaintiff 

asked for a meet and confer on March 10, 2015. Defendant failed to respond for over a month, and thus Plaintiff 

filed this motion on April 20, 2015. Defendant not only claims that he lacked “a chance to serve a written 

response,” in that time, but asks this Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion because Plaintiff failed to meet and confer. 

Defendant’s responses are not well taken and indicate that Defendant did not abide by its discovery obligations in 

good faith.” (Court’s Order, ECF No. 49 at 3:16-24.)

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 55 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 3
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

granted and the Court will not otherwise modify its order. If Defendant wishes to get input 

from the CDCR regarding what if any documents should be submitted in camera for potential 

redactions prior to turning over to the Plaintiff, it can do so. But Defendant Juarez himself has 

a discovery obligation and must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in full.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Juarez’s request for extension of time, filed on November 30, 2015, 

is GRANTED;

2. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Defendant Juarez shall 

provide discovery responses in compliance with the Court’s order issued on 

November 2, 2015; and

3. Defendant Juarez’s failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition 

of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2015 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 55 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 3