Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06018/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06018-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED BROWN, CASE NO. CV-F-02-6018 AWI DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL 

DEFENDANT BUNKER TO RESPOND 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

vs.

[Docs. 80, 92]

EDGAR CASTILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The instant action involves allegations by plaintiff that during his

incarceration at theCalifornia Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran State Prison, defendants

were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by failing to provide him with a replacement for his

old wheelchair. Plaintiff alleges that on January 28, 2002, he fell out of his wheelchair and suffered

physical injuries. Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel further responses to his Request for Production

of Documents to defendant Bunker served on May 19, 2005. Defendant Bunker filed an opposition to

the motion on July 18, 2005. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s motion must be denied based on the

Court’s March 28, 2005 scheduling ordersetting the discovery cut-off for May 27, 2005 and stating that

all discovery had to be served at least 45 days prior to the discovery cut-off. Defendant also argues that

Case 1:02-cv-06018-LJO-DLB Document 113 Filed 10/07/05 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

plaintiff failed to meet and confer regarding this discovery dispute as required by the Court’s March 28,

2005 Order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2)(B).

While the Court agrees that plaintiff’s request for production of documents was untimely under

the Court’s March 28, 2005 Order, defendant is reminded that on April 13, 2005, plaintiff filed an

amended complaint. On May 18, 2005, defendant Bunker filed a motion to dismiss the claims against

him. The Court has recommended that the motion be granted in part. Upon adoption of the

recommendation by the District Court, defendant Bunker will be required to answer the amended

complaint which will result in new scheduling deadlines, including a new discovery cutoff. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to plaintiff’s request for production of

documents from defendant Bunker is DENIED without prejudice to reserving the request upon the

issuance of a modified scheduling order. With this in mind, defendant should consider voluntarily

providing a response to the request. Plaintiff is reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 37(a)(2)(A), a motion to compel discovery responses must be accompanied by a certification

that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party not making the

disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 6, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06018-LJO-DLB Document 113 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 2