Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00441/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00441-63/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON WAYNE MCNEAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. LECKIE; A ERVIN; R. 

CHATHAM, substituted party 

for C. CHATHAM, deceased; and 

D. VAN LEER;

Defendants.

No. 2:05-cv-00441-GEB-EFB

ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY MOTIONS

Plaintiff filed three discovery motions on March 31, 

2016 (ECF Nos. 262, 263 and 264); a discovery motion on April 1, 

2016 (ECF No. 265); an April 8, 2016 objection which contains 

discovery requests (ECF No. 266); an April 14, 2016 discovery 

motion (characterized by Plaintiff as a motion to amend 

photographs) (ECF No. 267); and four discovery motions on April 

22, 2016 (ECF Nos. 268, 269, 270 and 271). 

However, as Plaintiff was informed in the Pretrial 

Order filed on February 24, 2015, "[d]iscovery [is] closed [and] 

Plaintiff has not provided the court with any reason why he did 

not timely pursue the requested information [before discovery 

closed]." (Pretrial Order 19:16-18, ECF No. 180.) The Pretrial 

Case 2:05-cv-00441-TLN-EFB Document 275 Filed 10/12/16 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

Order states “[i]f no objections are made [within 30 days], the 

Pretrial Order will become final without further order of the 

court.” (Pretrial Order 21:21–22, ECF No. 180.) Although 

Plaintiff filed objections to certain portions of the Pretrial 

Order, the objections to the undisputed facts section of the 

order are overruled and Plaintiff’s remaining objections concern 

matters that fail to prevent the Pretrial Order from becoming 

final. Further, the Pretrial Order was supplemented by Orders

filed May 22, 2015 and June 1, 2015. (ECF Nos. 206 and 210.)

Therefore, Plaintiff's discovery requests are untimely 

since discovery is closed and Plaintiff has not shown that the 

date by which discovery was to have been completed should be 

modified to prevent manifest injustice. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests filed March 31, 2016 (ECF Nos. 262, 263 and 

264) are DENIED; Plaintiff’s discovery request filed April 1, 

2016 (ECF No. 265) is DENIED; Plaintiff’s discovery request filed 

April 8, 2016 (ECF No. 266) is DENIED; Plaintiff’s discovery 

request filed April 14, 2016 (ECF No. 267) is DENIED; and 

Plaintiff’s discovery requests filed April 22, 2016 (ECF Nos. 

268, 269, 270 and 271) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2016

Case 2:05-cv-00441-TLN-EFB Document 275 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 2