Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00855/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00855-12/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

Gerry Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is proceeding against 

defendants Ogbuehi and Ulit based on allegations that Plaintiff’s Hepatitis C “went untreated 

despite his reports of excruciating pain,” and that “he received no treatment for his pain 

associated with Hepatitis C and cirrhosis.” (ECF No. 24, p. 2).

I. THE PARTIES’ FILINGS

On November 16, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to compel and to modify the 

scheduling order. (ECF No. 63). Defendants “move to compel Plaintiff Gerry Williams’s 

responses to the Prison Medical Officials’ interrogatories.” (Id. at 2). In addition, Defendants 

“request that the Court extend the deadline to complete discovery from February 17, 2023, to 

45 days after the Court rules on their motion to compel.”

According to Defendants, they served Plaintiff with interrogatories and requests for 

admission on September 27, 2022, and his responses were due on November 14, 2022. (Id. at 

GERRY WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CLEMENT OGBUEHI, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG (PC)

 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL AND TO 

MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(ECF Nos. 63 & 64)

Case 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG Document 65 Filed 11/29/22 Page 1 of 3
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). “On November 8, 2022, the parties conferred by telephone.” (Id.). Plaintiff told defense 

counsel that he sent his responses on November 7, 2022. (Id.). “However, defense counsel did 

not receive these responses.” Accordingly, Defendants ask the Court to compel Plaintiff to 

respond. (Id. at 2-3).

On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel 

and to modify scheduling order, as well as a request for sanctions. (ECF No. 64). Plaintiff 

states that the call occurred as alleged by Defendants. (Id. at 1). However, Plaintiff did mail 

the discovery responses on November 7, 2022, as he told defense counsel on the call. (Id.). 

Attached to Plaintiff’s motion are his discovery responses, as well as proofs of service 

indicating that they were served on or before November 7, 2022. (Id. at 6-34). Accordingly, 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ motion to compel and request to modify the scheduling order

should be denied. (Id. at 2).

Plaintiff also asks for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 and 

37(a)(5) because Defendants filed the motion to compel for an improper purpose. (Id. at 2-3). 

Plaintiff argues that because he told Defendants on November 8, 2022, that he had already sent 

the responses, their motion to compel was filed for an improper purpose and “sanction is 

required....” (Id.). Plaintiff further argues that Defendants requested an extension of time in 

order to delay the proceedings. (Id. at 3).

II. ANALYSIS

As to Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery requests, Plaintiff 

has submitted evidence that he timely responded to Defendants’ discovery requests. Moreover, 

Plaintiff’s responses are attached to his opposition. Accordingly, the Court will deny 

Defendants’ motion to compel.

As to Defendants’ request to modify the scheduling order, the deadline to complete nonexpert discovery, February 17, 2023 (ECF No. 47, p. 5), is already over forty-five days from 

the date of this order on Defendants’ motion to compel. Accordingly, the request to modify the 

scheduling order will be denied.

As to Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, it will be denied as well. There is no evidence 

Case 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG Document 65 Filed 11/29/22 Page 2 of 3
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

that, when Defendants filed the motion to compel and to modify the scheduling order on 

November 16, 2022, they had already received the discovery responses that Plaintiff alleges 

were mailed on November 7, 2022. Moreover, the motion to compel deadline was November 

18, 2022. (ECF No. 47, p. 5). Thus, the Court finds that Defendants’ motion to compel was 

substantially justified and that there is no evidence that Defendants filed the motion for an 

improper purpose. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

III. ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel and to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 63) 

is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions (ECF No. 64) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG Document 65 Filed 11/29/22 Page 3 of 3