Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01196/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01196-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

ORDER – 1 

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

 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT MITCHELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. FELKER, et al., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. C08-1196RAJ 

ORDER ON DISCOVERY 

MOTIONS 

This matter comes before the court on two discovery-related motions from 

Plaintiff Robert Mitchell. The first is a motion (Dkt. # 22) to compel discovery responses 

based solely on Plaintiff’s allegation that he had received no responses from Defendants 

to his discovery requests. The second is a motion (Dkt. # 23) to modify the court’s 

scheduling order to permit additional time for the discovery process. 

The court denies the first motion because it is moot. Defendants have submitted 

unchallenged evidence that they provided discovery responses. The court need not 

determine at this time why the responses did not arrive sooner. The court notes that 

Plaintiff has filed a separate motion to compel and for other sanctions related to the 

substance (or lack thereof) of Defendants’ discovery responses. That motion is not yet 

ripe for consideration, and nothing in this order should be read as resolving any issue 

raised in that motion. 

Case 2:08-cv-01196-TLN-EFB Document 27 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 2
ORDER – 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

The court denies the second motion solely because the court finds it premature at 

this time. The court assures Plaintiff that he will be given a fair opportunity to complete 

discovery, and that should the court determine that Defendants have withheld discovery 

or intentionally delayed discovery, the court will take appropriate action, including 

extending the discovery deadline. At this time, the court prefers to encourage all parties 

to complete discovery before the March 31, 2010 deadline. 

DATED this 1st day of March, 2010. 

AThe Honorable Richard A. Jones 

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-01196-TLN-EFB Document 27 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2