Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02006/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02006-3/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

CHRISTOPHER OATEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2006 LKK JFM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed two requests to extend the July 15, 2005 discovery cut-off. 

In his request, plaintiff argues that he has had limited law library access and states he spent time

preparing for his deposition which, by the date he signed his request, July 19, 2005, had not yet

occurred. In addition, he contends that this court’s ruling on the in camera review of documents

submitted pursuant to this court’s June 8, 2005 order, may require additional discovery. Plaintiff

seeks an additional thirty days in which to propound discovery and contends such an extension

will not impose on the remaining schedule set in this matter. 

Pursuant to this court’s scheduling order, issued March 17, 2005, discovery closed

July 15, 2005. By order filed July 20, 2005, defendants were granted until August 15, 2005 in

which to depose plaintiff. It appears from the record that plaintiff was deposed on August 5,

2005.

Case 2:03-cv-02006-LKK -JFM Document 73 Filed 09/09/05 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

It does not appear at this time than an extension of the discovery deadline is

warranted. The court is in the process of obtaining redacted copies of discovery pertinent to the

in camera review. Plaintiff may renew his request, with a detailed description of the discovery

he believes is appropriate, if further discovery is appropriate following the court’s decision on the

in camera review. Thus, plaintiff’s requests to extend the discovery deadline will be denied

without prejudice.

Counsel for defendants have filed separate requests for extension of the pretrial

motions deadline, primarily because they are awaiting receipt of the transcript from plaintiff’s

deposition. Because plaintiff’s deposition was continued, defendants’ requests will be granted.

On August 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents. 

This motion was filed outside the July 15, 2005 discovery deadline. Thus, the motion is untimely

and will be denied. Plaintiff shall refrain from filing any further discovery motions or requests

relating to discovery pending the court’s ruling on the in camera review. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 5, 2005 and August 22, 2005 requests to extend the

discovery deadline are denied without prejudice. 

2. The deadline for filing pretrial motions is extended from September 9, 2005 to

October 19, 2005.

3. Plaintiff’s August 22, 2005 motion to compel production of documents is

denied.

DATED: September 8, 2005.

/001

oate2006.36a

Case 2:03-cv-02006-LKK -JFM Document 73 Filed 09/09/05 Page 2 of 2