Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06313/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06313-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE D. RANDLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 6313 REC SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

(Docs. 49, 51.)

Willie D. Randle is (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. 49), seeking a Court

order to compel the Defendants to respond to a Request for production of documents. Plaintiff

states that he served a Request for Production of Documents on October 26, 2006, but that

Counsel for Defendants informed him that a response to the discovery would not be forthcoming

because the Request was not served at least forty-five (45) days before the expiration of the

deadline on December 8, 2006. (Exh. B, Motion to Compel filed November 16, 2006.) 

Defendants filed an Opposition to this Motion on December 5, 2006. (Doc. 50.)

On December 4, 2006, Plaintiff filed a second Motion to Compel Discovery. (Doc. 51.) 

In this document, Plaintiff again moves for an Order compelling responses to a second Request

for Production of Documents (set one) and two copies of Interrogatories (set one) served on

November 1, 2006. Plaintiff states again that the Defendants have declined to respond because

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 54 Filed 12/14/06 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

the discovery was not served at least forty-five days before the expiration of the discovery

deadline on December 8, 2006. (Exh. B, Motion to Compel filed December 4, 2006.) 

Defendants filed an Opposition to this Motion on December 6, 2006. (Doc. 52.) 

On April 7, 2006, this Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order setting forth a

discovery deadline of December 8, 2006. In that Order, the Court informed the parties that all

discovery was to be completed on or before December 8, 2006. This meant that all discovery

requests must be served at least forty-five days before the expiration of the deadline to ensure

that the opposing party had 45 days to respond. (Doc. 45, ¶ 3.) As the discovery deadline in this

case was December 8, 2006, all discovery would have to be served by the parties no later than

October 24, 2006. According to Motions filed by Plaintiff, discovery was served on the

Defendants on October 26, 2006, and November 1, 2006. This would provide the Defendants

with less than the 45 days which they are entitled to under the Court’s Order in which to respond

to Plaintiff’s discovery. According to the Court docket, Plaintiff did not seek to extend the

discovery deadline. The Court notes further that discovery opened in this case in April of 2006. 

Thus, Plaintiff had at least almost eight (8) months to formulate and serve discovery, however, he

did not do so until October, five months after discovery opened. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motions to Compel filed on November 16, 2006, and December 5, 2006, are

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 54 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 2