Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02225/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02225-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY JEROME YOUNG, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2225 GEB KJM P

vs.

J. PULSIPHER, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery filed September 12,

2005. See Docket number 27. Plaintiff avers that he has served two sets of discovery on

defendants, but that they only responded to the second set and as to the second set, failed to fully

answer.

On September 27, 2005, defendants filed an opposition to the motion, explaining

that plaintiff is correct in asserting non-response as to the first set and further explaining that

defense counsel received the discovery, sought assistance in responding to it because he was

scheduled for surgery beginning July 15, 2005, and would not be back in the office for an

extended period of time. Counsel further explained that during his recovery from surgery,

serious complications arose involving blood clots and a pulmonary embolism that required

further hospitalization and further absence from his office and thus, attendance to this case and

Case 2:03-cv-02225-KJM Document 30 Filed 10/04/05 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

2

others assigned him. Finally, counsel explained that he only returned to his office, part-time, on

September 19, 2005, and was apprised about the failure to respond to the first set of discovery.

As to the first set of discovery, defendants seek leave, for good cause shown, that

they be permitted to respond nunc pro tunc to the date responses were originally due.

The court concludes that good cause does exist for defendants’ failure to answer

the first set of discovery, and so will grant defendants’ request for an extension of time nunc pro

tunc. The merits of plaintiff’s motion to compel will be addressed separately, in an order to

follow.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Defendants are granted leave to serve their responses to plaintiff’s first set of

discovery on or before October 17, 2005; such responses shall be deemed timely filed nunc pro

tunc. 

2. Any motion to compel further discovery based on the responses to the first set

only shall be filed on or before November 7, 2005, with opposition due two weeks after the

motion is filed. Discovery shall otherwise be deemed closed effective September 9, 2005, as

provided by the court’s May 12, 2005, scheduling order.

3. The time for filing pretrial motions is extended to December 16, 2005. 

DATED: October 3, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2

youn2225.eot

Case 2:03-cv-02225-KJM Document 30 Filed 10/04/05 Page 2 of 2