Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02447/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02447-0/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 06cv2447 LAB (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID RAYMOND ANDREWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M.C. WHITMAN, Corrections Counselor;

G.J. JANDA, Chief Deputy Warden; M.E.

BOURLAND, Chief Deputy Warden; T.

OCHOA, Chief Deputy Warden; C.

BUTLER, Captain; W.C. ROBERTS,

Captain; F. RUTLEDGE, Sergeant;

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, a public entity; ET ALIA

UNIDENTIFIED DEFENDANTS,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.06cv2447 LAB (NLS)

ORDER DENYING BILL OF

EXCEPTIONS OR MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. No. 33]

On July 13, 2007, Defendants filed a motion for a protective order staying any and all discovery

pending the Court’s final order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court took the matter under

submission and on July 23, before Plaintiff’s opposition was due, granted the motion. [Doc. No. 28.]

Plaintiff then asked the Court for an extension of time to respond to the motion for protective

order, but the Court rejected that document via discrepancy order because it had already ruled on the

motion. [Doc. No. 31.] The Court, however, accepted another document from Plaintiff entitled “Bill of

Exceptions.” [Doc. Nos. 32, 33.] In the Bill of Exceptions, Plaintiff objects to the Court’s July 23 Order

because he never had the opportunity to respond to the motion for a protective order. The Court

construes the “Bill of Exceptions” as a motion for reconsideration.

Case 3:06-cv-02447-LAB-NLS Document 34 Filed 08/15/07 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

27

28

2 06cv2447 LAB (NLS)

The Court may relieve a party from an order for reasons of mistake, inadvertence or excusable

neglect. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). Here, Plaintiff offers no reasons for the Court to reconsider its order

and remove the stay on discovery. This case is still at the pleading stage, and the Court will not issue an

order regulating discovery and other pretrial proceedings until after Defendants answer the operative

complaint in the matter. Therefore, the Court stands by its original ruling and DENIES Plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration.

IT IT SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 15, 2007

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02447-LAB-NLS Document 34 Filed 08/15/07 Page 2 of 2