Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02068/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02068-8/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Alberto Villescas is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of 

the United States Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 302.

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff‟s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious risk of 

harm against Defendant D. Fisher, retaliation against Defendants C. Hernandez, M.T. Dotson, J. 

Madrigal, and W. Tucker, and excessive force against Defendant W. Tucker. (ECF No. 14.) 

On June 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 43.) Defendants filed 

an opposition on June 22, 2015. (ECF No. 44.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), the motion is deemed 

submitted for review. 

On July 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court‟s denial of Plaintiff‟s 

third request for an extension of the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 47.) Because the Court does not 

ALBERTO VILLESCAS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M.T. DOTSON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02068-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION 

TO COMPEL AND DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL 

OF THIRD REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE 

DISCOVERY DEADLINE

[ECF Nos. 43, 47]

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 50 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 11
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

need a response to Plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration, the Court elects to rule on the motion prior to 

expiration period to file a response pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). 

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of 

confinement. As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would 

otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to 

involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 22, Discovery and Scheduling Order, &4. Further, where 

otherwise discoverable information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or 

infringe upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in 

determining whether disclosure should occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. 

Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21, 104 S.Ct. 2199 (1984) (privacy rights or interests implicit in broad 

purpose and language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court 

for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing assertion of privilege); Soto 

v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a constitutionally-based right 

of privacy that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB 

PC, 2012 WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting inmate=s entitlement to inspect 

discoverable information may be accommodated in ways which mitigate institutional safety concerns); 

Robinson v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 

16, 2012) (issuing protective order regarding documents containing information which implicated the 

safety and security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for protective order and for redaction of information 

asserted to risk jeopardizing safety and security of inmates or the institution if released); Womack v. 

Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) 

(requiring defendants to submit withheld documents for in camera review or move for a protective 

order). 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 50 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 11
3

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

However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The 

discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of 

discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 

1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties may obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party=s claim or defense, and for good cause, 

the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial 

if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

(quotation marks omitted).

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel 

bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV 

S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at 

*3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis 

v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 

This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the 

motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why 

the responding party=s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 

2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4. 

However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these 

procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigation; therefore, to the extent possible, the 

Court endeavors to resolve his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 

606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 

2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 

B. Motion to Compel

1. Plaintiff‟s Motion is Untimely

On April 25, 2014, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order, setting the deadline 

for completion of all discovery (including motions to compel) as December 25, 2014. (ECF No. 22.) 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 50 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 11
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

27

28

On October 31, 2014, Plaintiff moved to extend the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 26.) 

Defendants did not object to Plaintiff‟s request. The Court granted Plaintiff‟s request and the 

discovery deadline was extended to March 5, 2015. (ECF No. 29.)

On January 29, 2015, Plaintiff moved for a second extension of the discovery deadline. (ECF 

No. 35.) As with Plaintiff‟s prior request, Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff‟s second request. (ECF 

No. 36.) The Court granted Plaintiff‟s second request, and the discovery deadline was extended to 

May 5, 2015. (ECF No. 37.)

On April 21, 2015, Plaintiff moved for a third extension of the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 

39.) Defendants opposed Plaintiff‟s request on May 8, 2015. (ECF No. 40.) The Court denied 

Plaintiff‟s third request on May 27, 2015, based on Plaintiff‟s failure to demonstrate good cause. 

(ECF No. 42.) Consequently, the May 5, 2015, discovery remained in full force and effect.

With applicable of the mailbox rule,

1

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel on May 28, 

2015, and Plaintiff‟s motion is untimely.2 (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff does not explain the delay in 

bringing his motion, and Plaintiff has not filed or been granted an extension of the discovery deadline 

to file a motion to compel. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s motion to compel is untimely and is subject to 

denial on that basis alone. In any event, notwithstanding the untimeliness of Plaintiff‟s motion, it must 

be denied on procedural grounds and for lack of merit.

2. Procedural Defects of Motion to Compel as to Defendants‟ Interrogatory Responses

In his motion to compel, Plaintiff does not include a copy of Defendants‟ interrogatory 

responses, and Plaintiff‟s motion provides no indication of what, if any, objections by Defendants 

were unjustified. Thus, it is impossible to decipher exactly which discovery requests the court should 

compel Defendants to answer. Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, as the moving party he bears 

“the burden of informing the Court of which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to 

compel, which of the responses are disputed, why the responses are deficient, why the objections are 

not justified, and why the information sought is relevant to the prosecution of this case.” Robinson v. 

 

1

See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-271 (1988). 

2

The April 25, 2014, discovery and scheduling order specifically stated that the deadline for the completion of discovery 

included the filing of all motions to compel discovery. (ECF No. 22, Order ¶ 7.) 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 50 Filed 07/23/15 Page 4 of 11
5

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

Adams, Civ. No. 08-1380, 2010 WL 1948252, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010) (citing Hallett v. 

Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (moving party bears the burden of showing that denial of 

discovery requests in actual and substantial prejudice)) (other citations omitted). Because Plaintiff‟s 

motion to compel does not provide sufficient detail it must be denied. 

3. Defendants‟ Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

If a party, in response to a request for production under Rule 34, fails to produce or permit 

inspection, the discovery party may move for an order compelling production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(3). As the moving party, Plaintiff bears the burden of informing the Court of (1) which 

discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of Defendants‟ responses are 

disputed, (3) why he believes Defendants‟ responses are deficient, (4) why Defendants‟ objections are

not justified, and (5) why the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of 

this action. See, e.g., Brooks v. Alameida, No. CIV S-03-2343 JAM EFB P, 2009 WL 331358, *2 

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009 (“Without knowing which responses plaintiff seeks to compel or on what 

grounds, the court cannot grant Plaintiff‟s motion.”) 

In his motion to compel, Plaintiff states he “seeks any and all grievances, complaints, or other 

documents received by the Defendants or their agents and any and all memoranda, investigative files 

or other documents created in response to such documents. The Defendants state their objections 

generally and fail to provide at the very least an explanation and list of any documents or provide any 

information about the documents to be reviewed by a Judge. Plaintiff seeks documents pertaining to 

complaints and allegations about Defendants, not about their medical data, or information about their 

records of tardiness, leaves, etc. The information sought is highly relevant. The documents are 

evidence that support the claims against Defendants.” (ECF No. 43, Mot. at 2:11-18.) 

Defendants submit that Plaintiff propounded fourteen requests for production of documents, 

and Defendants either provided responsive materials or verified that they were unable to locate such 

materials after a diligent search, with respect to ten of the requests. Defendants address the four of 

Plaintiff‟s requests for production of documents, which presumably may be the subject of the instant 

motion to compel. Based on Defendants‟ submission and analysis, the Court likewise will address 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 50 Filed 07/23/15 Page 5 of 11
6

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

Plaintiff‟s request for production of documents, set one, numbers 1, 2, 3, and 11. The ten other 

requests will be addressed separately below.

a. Request for Production 1, Set One

Request for Production 1:

“Any and all documents (electronic or otherwise) concerning Appeals, Complaints, 

Confrontations, Disciplinary Actions, Evaluations, Grievances, Internal Affairs Reports, 

Investigations, Peer Reviews, Personnel Files, Reprimands, Staff Misconduct, Suits, and 

Supervisor Reviews for each Defendant: D. Fischer, M.T. Dotson, W. Tucker, C. Hernandez, J. 

Madrigal.”

Response to Request for Production 1:

Defendants object on the grounds that this request is overbroad and calls for vast amounts of 

information that is simply irrelevant to Plaintiff‟s claims against the five Defendants. So too, 

the request is unduly burdensome because it would require Defendants or other officials to 

spend countless hours searching for items that may or may not exist, but are irrelevant to the 

claims in this case in either event. Last, to the extent any responsive materials exist, 

Defendants object that the request calls for information that is protected from disclosure by the 

official-information privilege.

(ECF No. 43 at 30.) 

Ruling:

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel a further request must be denied. Plaintiff‟s request is overbroad 

as it is not limited in time or scope. Defendants simply cannot respond to this request because the 

amount of materials is potentially limitless, and they cannot guess which documents Plaintiff may be 

seeking. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s motion to compel is DENIED.

b. Request for Production 2, Set One 

Request for Production 2:

“Any and all responses to documents request in #1.”

Response to Request for Production 2:

Defendants object on the grounds that this request is overbroad and calls for vast amounts of 

information that is simply irrelevant to Plaintiff‟s claims against the five Defendants. So too, 

the request is unduly burdensome because it would require Defendants or other officials to 

spend countless hours searching for items that may or may not exist, but are irrelevant to the 

claims in this case in either event. Last, to the extent any responsive materials exist, 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 50 Filed 07/23/15 Page 6 of 11
7

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

Defendants object that the request calls for information that is protected from disclosure by the 

official-information privilege.

Ruling:

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel a further response to Request for Production No. 2 must be 

DENIED for the same reasons discussed above as to Request for Production No. 1. 

c. Request for Production 3, Set One

Request for Production 3:

“Any and all witness statements that have been made against any Defendant in previous 

incidents, or in relation to documents requested in #1.”

Response to Request for Production 3:

Defendants object on the grounds that this request is overbroad and calls for vast amounts of 

information that is simply irrelevant to Plaintiff‟s claims against the five Defendants. So too, 

the request is unduly burdensome because it would require Defendants or other officials to 

spend countless hours searching for items that may or may not exist, but are irrelevant to the 

claims in this case in either event. Last, to the extent any responsive materials exist, Defendant 

object that the request calls for information that is protected from disclosure by the officialinformation privilege.

(ECF No. 43, at 30-31.)

Ruling:

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel a further response to Request for Production No. 3 must be 

DENIED for the same reasons discussed above as to Request for Production No. 1. 

d. Request for Production 11, Set One

Request for Production 11:

“Inmate/Parolee Appeal CDC 602 by inmate Pentecost, P72157, concerning „converted cells‟ 

by any name and the response to that appeal.”

Response to Request for Production 11:

Defendants object that this request lacks foundation because it assumes as true facts which 

have not been established; namely, that the inmate named here ever submitted an 

administrative appeal relating to “converted cells.” Even assuming such an appeal existed, 

Defendants object on the grounds that disclosure of such an appeal would violate third-party 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 50 Filed 07/23/15 Page 7 of 11
8

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

privacy rights. Last, Defendants object that this request calls for production of materials that 

are irrelevant to Plaintiff‟s claims against the five Defendants in this case.

(ECF No. 43 at 33.) 

Ruling:

Plaintiff‟s motion to compel a further response must be DENIED. Plaintiff fails to explain 

how this third-party appeal is relevant to the specific claims at issue in this case. In a letter attached to

Plaintiff‟s motion, Plaintiff asserts that “[t]he appeal is relevant to Plaintiff‟s claim against Defendant 

Fisher as evidence under Rule 404.” (ECF No. 43 at 39.) The letter attached to Plaintiff‟s motion 

does not explain how the appeal (if it exists), is relevant to the claims against Fisher; rather, Plaintiff 

merely contends it is relevant evidence under Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Plaintiff has 

failed to demonstrate how any appeal by inmate Fisher is relevant to claims at issue in this action, and 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a proper purpose for the use of such third-party appeal as character 

evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s motion to compel must be 

denied. 

e. Requests for Production 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13

As previously stated, Plaintiff‟s first set of production requests included fourteen separate 

requests for documents. (ECF No. 43 at 29-34.) With the exception of the four responses discussed 

above, Defendants submit that they have already responded fully to each of Plaintiff‟s production 

requests. (ECF No. 44, at 7-8.)

Defendants submit that with respect to Plaintiff‟s requests for production 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 

and 13, Defendants timely produced over 220 pages of materials as part of eight different attachments. 

(ECF No. 44-1, Delgado Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff does not mention the production of such documentation, 

and Defendants have attached the documents to their response. (ECF No. 44, Ex. A.) In addition, 

Defendants submit that all five Defendants produced copies of their post orders at Pleasant Valley 

State Prison as part of their responses to Plaintiff‟s interrogatories. (Resp. to Req. for Produc. Nos 5-

9, ECF No. 43 at 31-32.) 

Plaintiff‟s motion does not indicate how Defendants‟ responses are incomplete or unjustified, 

and based on the representation by Defendants they have produced all responsive materials they were 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 50 Filed 07/23/15 Page 8 of 11
9

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

able to locate, and no additional responsive documents to produce exist. Plaintiff must accept 

Defendants‟ response and any bare assertion by Plaintiff regarding incomplete compliance is 

insufficient to support a motion to compel. 

With regard specifically to Plaintiff request for production 13 (in which Plaintiff requested 

“Inmate/Parolee Appeal CDC 602 by Villescas, P16275, after the disposition of RVR 115 by Tucker, 

which staff also lost.”) and 14 (in which Plaintiff requested “Any and all documentation concerning 

approval to convert regular cells for use by DPW inmates or into ADA cells.”), Defendants were 

unable to locate any responsive documents after a diligent search, and such indication was verified in 

their responses. Absent evidence to the contrary-not present here, Plaintiff is required to accept 

Defendants‟ responses that there is no responsive documents to produce. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s 

motion to compel a further response must be denied. 

C. Motion for Reconsideration

1. Procedural Background

Pursuant to the Court‟s discovery and scheduling order issued April 25, 2014, the Court set a 

deadline for the completion of all discovery by December 25, 2014-eight months after issuance of the 

order. (ECF No. 22.) 

On October 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline. Defendants did 

not oppose the motion, and the motion was granted extending the deadline for discovery to March 5, 

2015. (ECF Nos. 26, 29.) 

Plaintiff filed a second motion to extend the discovery deadline on January 29, 2015. 

Defendants did not oppose the motion, and the motion was granted extending the discovery deadline 

to May 5, 2015, and the dispositive motion deadline to July 5, 2015. (ECF Nos. 35, 36, 37.) 

On April 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a third motion to extend the discovery and dispositive motion 

deadline. (ECF No. 39.) On May 8, 2015, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff‟s motion. (ECF 

No. 40.) Plaintiff filed a reply on May 22, 2015, titled a “motion for hearing of response to defense 

opposition to extension of time.” (ECF No. 41.) 

On May 27, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff‟s third request to extend the discovery deadline 

finding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for a further extension of the discovery deadline 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 50 Filed 07/23/15 Page 9 of 11
10

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

given that Plaintiff had over a year to conduct discovery, as the deadline had previously been extended 

twice. (ECF No. 42, at 3.) 

2. Legal Standard for Reconsideration

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there 

is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 

& Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “A party 

seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court‟s decision, and 

recapitulation ...” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. United 

States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2011). To succeed, a party 

must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior 

decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), 

aff‟d in part and rev‟d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Additionally, pursuant 

to this Court‟s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party must show what “new or 

different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such 

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). 

Once a scheduling order has been filed pursuant to Rule 16, the “schedule may be modified 

only for good cause and with the judge‟s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)‟s „good 

cause‟ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The Court may 

modify the pretrial schedule „if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking 

the extension.‟” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee‟s notes). 

3. Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff contends that he has been unable to comply with the 

discovery deadlines due to his medical issues. Plaintiff also contends that he could not conduct 

additional discovery because defense counsel failed to comply with his first set of discovery requests. 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 50 Filed 07/23/15 Page 10 of 11
11

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

Plaintiff presents his motion for reconsideration to merely repeat facts that were presented in 

his motion for extension of the discovery deadline and/or present facts that should have been presented 

in his motion for extension of the discovery deadline. 

Even assuming the truth of Plaintiff‟s allegations regarding his medical issues, Plaintiff has had 

over a year (April 25, 2014 to May 5, 2015) to conduct discovery (unopposed by Defendants), and 

Plaintiff failed to avail himself of such extensive time period. There is nothing before the Court to 

reveal that Plaintiff‟s health prevented him from conducting discovery during the discovery time 

frame.3 In addition, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate due diligence on his part in attempting to 

conduct discovery during the discovery period. Furthermore, as explained above Plaintiff was served 

with Defendants responses to his first set of discovery requests on January 8, 2015, and the fact that 

Plaintiff believed such responses were inadequate (which as explained above is not correct) does not 

provide a basis to extend the discovery deadline. More importantly, Plaintiff‟s third motion for an 

extension of time, instant motion for reconsideration, and motion to compel, does not identify or even 

suggest the nature of any further discovery he may need with regarding the claims at issue in this 

action. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that reconsideration of the Court‟s decision is warranted, 

and his motion for reconsideration of the Court‟s May 27, 2015, order is DENIED. 

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s motion to compel is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration of the Court‟s May 27, 2015, order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

3

Plaintiff did not submit any medical evidence in connection with the instant motion to substantiate his claim regarding 

the extent of his medical issues. 

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 50 Filed 07/23/15 Page 11 of 11