Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00233/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00233-14/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ONTIVEROS, No. CIV S-06-0233-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions to compel (Docs. 55 and

57) filed on June 25, 2007, and August 6, 2007. Defendants have filed an opposition (Doc. 59). 

In his June 25, 2007, motion (Doc. 55), plaintiff references discovery requests

attached to a March 25, 2007, filing. While nothing was filed on March 25, 2007, on March 30,

2007, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Request to File Discovery and Motion for Third (3rd)

Intervention to Serve Defendants S. Kernan / R. Pimentel” (Doc. 38). That document was dated

and signed by plaintiff on March 27, 2007. Attached to the document are the following

discovery requests directed to defendant Williams dated and signed on March 25, 2007: (1)

requests for admissions; (2) interrogatories; and (3) requests for production. Plaintiff did not

Case 2:06-cv-00233-LKK -CMK Document 61 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

submit proofs of service of any of these discovery requests. On May 24, 2007, the court issued

an order addressing the March 30, 2007, filing:

As to plaintiff’s requests to file discovery documents, plaintiff is

advised that such documents need not be filed with the court except as part

of a motion to compel. Therefore, plaintiff’s discovery requests will not

be filed and will not be considered at this time. The court refers plaintiff

to the March 8, 2007, discovery order for instructions regarding

conducting discovery in this matter. 

In the instant June 25, 2007, motion, plaintiff states that he is complying with the court’s June

14, 2007, order. That order (Doc. 54, docketed on June 15, 2007) addressed plaintiff’s motion to

compel filed on June 8, 2007. Specifically, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) for a motion to compel and stated:

. . . Plaintiff has not established “proper service” of the requests. 

In particular, while plaintiff attached each of the discovery requests at

issue, which are dated March 25, 2007, plaintiff has not provided proofs of

service on defendants. For this reason, plaintiff’s motion to compel is

denied without prejudice. 

In plaintiff’s August 6, 2007, motion to compel (Doc. 57), plaintiff states that the

court has not responded to his “request” and has allowed “my discovery dead-line to pass without

any response.” He attaches to this motion copies of his prior submissions, including copies of

the three March 25, 2007, discovery requests discussed above and in the court’s prior order. He

also attaches for the first time discovery requests – also dated and signed on March 25, 2007 –

directed to defendants Kernan, Rendon, Childress, and Pimental. Also for the first time, plaintiff

attaches a proof of service indicating service of “discovery documents upon all defendants

Kernan, Pimental, Rendon, Childress, Williams” on March 25, 2007. 

Throughout his various motions, plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed to

respond to his discovery requests. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to serve

responses. In their opposition, defendants assert that plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery are

untimely as having been filed past the June 15, 2007, discovery cut-off date established in the

court’s March 8, 2007, scheduling order. Defendants also argue that, if plaintiff’s motion were

Case 2:06-cv-00233-LKK -CMK Document 61 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on August 9, 2007. 1

Plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment on 2

August 20, 2007. 

3

construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) for leave to conduct additional

discovery to oppose summary judgment, the court should require plaintiff to show that additional

discovery would uncover specific facts which would preclude summary judgment. 

1

The court agrees with defendants. As a motion to compel, the motion is untimely. 

The court’s scheduling order permitted the parties to conduct discovery until June 15, 2007. The

court’s May 24, 2007, order addressing plaintiff’s March 30, 2007, filing referred plaintiff to the

court’s prior order concerning the rules for conducting discovery. Plaintiff did not seek

modification of the scheduling order for more time to conduct discovery. Instead, plaintiff filed

his first motion to compel on June 8, 2007 – just one week prior to the discovery cut-off. That

motion was defective notwithstanding the court’s earlier order directing plaintiff’s attention to

the rules for discovery. The instant motions to compel were both filed after the discovery cut-off

date and are, therefore, untimely. 

Construed as a motion under Rule 56(f) for leave to conduct discovery to oppose

defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the court accepts defendants’ suggestion that plaintiff

be required to demonstrate how additional discovery would uncover evidence to defeat summary

judgment. Therefore, the court will deny the motion to compel without prejudice to plaintiff

filing a motion under Rule 56(f) with respect to the discovery requests at issue. The court will

defer consideration of defendants’ motion for summary judgment pending such a filing from

plaintiff. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that if he does not seek relief under Rule 56(f) within

the time permitted by this order, the court will deem the discovery issue abandoned and will rule

on defendants’ motion for summary judgment.2

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-00233-LKK -CMK Document 61 Filed 08/27/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to compel

(Docs. 55 and 57) are denied without prejudice to renewing the requests in a motion for leave to

conduct discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), such motion to be filed within 30

days of the date of this order.

DATED: August 24, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00233-LKK -CMK Document 61 Filed 08/27/07 Page 4 of 4