Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00323/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00323-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

[Proposed] Order (1:20-CV-00323-JLT-BAM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DORA SOLARES,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00323-JLT-BAM

ORDER ON DEFENDANT BURNES’S 

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE 

RELIEF TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO 

RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS

 (Doc. 61)

On September 11, 2023, Defendant Joseph Burnes’s (“Defendant Burnes”) counsel filed a 

motion for administrative relief regarding extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery 

requests. (Doc. 61.) On August 18, 2023, Plaintiff Dora Solares (“Plaintiff”) sent Defendant 

Burnes three sets of written discovery requests: one set of Requests for Production, one set of 

Requests for Admission, and one set of Interrogatories. (Id. at 6.) On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff 

sent Defendant Burnes a second set of Requests for Production. (Id. at 8.) In this motion, 

Defendant’s counsel notes that he “requires time to gather information and documents from 

Defendant and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and to 

provide substantive responses” to Plaintiff’s 66 requests. (Id. at 3, Duggan Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant 

Burnes argues that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced as the discovery stay was only recently lifted 

after resolution of Defendant Burnes’s motions to dismiss, and no scheduling order has been 

Case 1:20-cv-00323-LHR-BAM Document 63 Filed 09/22/23 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

[Proposed] Order (1:20-CV-00323-JLT-BAM)

entered. (Id. at 2.) Defendant Burnes requests that responses to Plaintiff’s requests sent on 

August 18 would be due on October 3, 2023, and the responses to Plaintiff’s requests sent on 

August 23 would be due on October 9, 2023. (Id. at 1.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel filed an opposition on September 13, 2023, arguing that Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure 33 and 36 only provide for 30 days for discovery request response. (Doc. 62 

at 2.) Plaintiff further argues that there is no good cause basis “other than it take time to respond 

to regular discovery requests” and contends that Plaintiff has suffered “a delay of over three-anda-half years since the filing of the lawsuit and still has not received discovery responses.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff further notes that many of the production requests in the August 18, 2023 request are 

identical to requests propounded in March 2021. (Id.)

Having reviewed Defendant Burnes’s motion for administrative relief to extend deadlines 

to respond to discovery requests (Doc. 61), and Plaintiff’s opposition (Doc. 62), and good cause 

appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant Burnes’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for 

Production, First Set of Requests for Admission, and First Set of Interrogatories (propounded on 

August 18, 2023), is extended to October 3, 2023. 

2. Defendant Burnes’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for 

Production (propounded on August 23, 2023) is extended to October 9, 2023. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00323-LHR-BAM Document 63 Filed 09/22/23 Page 2 of 2