Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02523/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02523-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN GREGORY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2523 DFL EFB P

vs.

T. AYERS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Defendants filed their

opposition to this motion on August 30, 2006, and plaintiff replied on September 11, 2006. 

In his motion, plaintiff states that he prepared his discovery requests “on or about 6-14-

06” but was unable to go to the law library to make copies until June 22, 2006, due to an

institutional lockdown on June 9, 2006. Plaintiff mailed his requests on June 22, 2006. In

response, plaintiff received a letter from defense counsel, which he submits together with his

motion, stating:

Defendants object to these discovery requests as untimely. They were not served

at least 60 days prior to the August 18, 2006 discovery cut-off date, as required by

the Court’s May 31, 2006 scheduling order. As such, Defendants are not

obligated to provide responses to your discovery requests. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02523-RRB-EFB Document 41 Filed 02/15/07 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

2

Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion on the basis that his requests for discovery were

untimely. Additionally, defendants claim that plaintiff’s justification for making his requests

three days late is “clearly false,” as the log for checking in and out of the prison law library

indicates that plaintiff was there on June 15, 2006. The representation by plaintiff in that regard

is, indeed, troubling.

The court notes, however, that on June 15, 2006, plaintiff had four full days in which to

mail these requests and still be within the required 60-day period prior to the August 18, 2006,

discovery cut-off date. Defendants do not dispute that the prison was on lockdown as plaintiff

claims, or that the lockdown interfered with plaintiff’s ability to timely mail his discovery

requests. 

In reluctantly granting plaintiff’s motion to compel, the court turns to the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, Rules 8(f) and 6(b)(2). Rule 8(f) provides that all pleadings shall be so

construed as to do substantial justice. Rule 6(b) provides that for cause shown the court may at

any time in its discretion, “upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit

the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” Notwithstanding

the questionable representation by plaintiff as to June 15, it still appears that his discovery

requests were late by a matter of a few days and that the lockdown interfered with his ability to

meet the deadline. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is granted.

In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 14, 2006, motion to compel is granted.

2. Defendants shall respond to plaintiff’s requests for discovery within twenty days from

the date this order is served.

Dated: February 15, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02523-RRB-EFB Document 41 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 2