Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00484/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00484-15/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

Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his discovery requests. On 

July 28, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.

On June 2, 2014, Plaintiff propounded nine sets of discovery requests on Defendants. (ECF 

No. 94 at 3.) Pursuant to this Court’s discovery and scheduling order, responses to written discovery 

requests are to be served forty-five days after the request is first served. (ECF No. 88 at 1.) 

Furthermore, if service is made by mail, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure extend the deadline by 

three days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C) and 6(d). Defendants’ discovery responses were due on or 

before July 20, 2014 (which was a Sunday). Under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if 

the last day for filing is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the deadline is extended to the first 

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL AS PREMATURE

[ECF No. 96]

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 98 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 2
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

accessible day that the clerk’s office is open. Therefore, Defendants discovery responses were due on 

July 21, 2014.

On July 18, 2014, Defendants requested a thirty-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests on the grounds that the requests were extensive and required expansive review by 

counsel. (ECF No. 94.) 

On July 21, 2014, upon the basis of good cause, the Court granted Defendants thirty additional 

days to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendants’ responses are now not due until August 

20, 2014. Accordingly, because Defendants timely sought and were granted an extension of the 

deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, Plaintiff’s instant motion to compel is premature 

and shall be denied on such basis. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 98 Filed 08/06/14 Page 2 of 2