Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00915/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00915-16/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID G. LEONARD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JIM DENNY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-0915 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a former county and current state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this action. Currently before the court are plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to 

supplement his previously filed motions to compel (ECF No. 110) and three motions to compel 

answers to special interrogatories and requests for admissions from defendants Brown, Denney, 

Parker, and Bidwell (ECF Nos. 108, 109 & 111). 

I. Motions to Compel 

On November 7, 2016, the undersigned magistrate judge signed an order that was filed the 

following day (ECF No. 107), vacating plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories 

(ECF No. 104) and directing the parties to meet and confer telephonically regarding that matter 

and any other foreseeable discovery disputes. Also on November 7, 2016, the court received two 

additional discovery motions from plaintiff: a motion to compel answers to special interrogatories 

from defendant Brown (ECF No. 108) and a motion to compel answers to requests for admissions 

Case 2:12-cv-00915-TLN-AC Document 116 Filed 11/17/16 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

from defendants Denney, Parker, and Bidwell (ECF No. 109). These matters were entered on the 

court’s docket after the November 8 order was issued. On November 14, 2016, apparently before 

he received the November 8 order, plaintiff filed still another motion to compel (ECF No. 111). 

Because these discovery motions (ECF Nos. 108, 109, 111) were all filed before the 

parties could meet and confer, they will be vacated with leave to re-file as in accordance with the 

time-frames set forth in the November 8, 2016 order. 

II. Motion for Extension of Time 

 Plaintiff has also filed a motion for extension of time to supplement his motions to 

compel, listing various reasons for the extension. ECF No. 110 at 2-4. The present motion for 

extension of time is denied as moot, because the deadline for filing a motion to compel responses 

to requests for admissions and plaintiff’s motions to compel admissions and interrogatory 

responses have been vacated. See supra Section I; ECF No. 107. As previously ordered, plaintiff 

shall have forty-five days from the date of the meet and confer to file a motion to compel answers 

to interrogatories or requests for admissions should those issues not be resolved during the 

telephonic meet and confer. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel answers to interrogatories and requests for admissions (ECF 

No. 108, 109, 111) are vacated with leave to re-file as necessary after the parties meet and 

confer. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 110) is denied as moot. 

DATED: November 16, 2016. 

 

Case 2:12-cv-00915-TLN-AC Document 116 Filed 11/17/16 Page 2 of 2