Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00088/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00088-14/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

VANCE BLAINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARRELL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00088-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER ADDRESSING OBJECTION

(Doc. 54)

On February 6, 2007, plaintiff filed an objection to defendants’ motion to compel. Court

Doc. 54. Defendants’ motion to compel was filed on December 18, 2006. Court Doc. 47. Plaintiff

did not file a timely opposition and the court granted the motion on January 26, 2007. Local Rule

78-230(m); Court Doc. 51. In its order, the court directed plaintiff to respond to defendants’

discovery requests within thirty days, and in his objection, plaintiff contends that he served a

response on January 10, 2007. If plaintiff responded to defendants’ discovery requests on January

10, 2007, he thereby satisfied the court’s order. There is no need for any further court involvement

concerning defendants’ motion to compel and plaintiff’s untimely objection.

Plaintiff also requests that the court order defendants to respond to his discovery requests

served on January 10, 2007. Plaintiff’s request is premature. Defendants have forty-five days plus

three days for mailing to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. Court Doc. 38; Fed. R. Civ. P.

6(e). The court does not intervene in discovery unless a dispute arises and a motion is filed. In this

instance there is no pending discovery dispute before the court and any issue regarding plaintiff’s

///

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 61 Filed 02/09/07 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

27

28

2

recently served discovery requests would not be ripe for adjudication by the court. Plaintiff’s request

is denied.

By this order, plaintiff’s objection, filed February 6, 2007, is HEREBY DEEMED

ADDRESSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 61 Filed 02/09/07 Page 2 of 2