Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01354/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01354-10/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

MOU SENG SEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIVAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER REINSTATING BRIEFING ON 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 42)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Mou Seng See (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 

Defendants Rivas, Roman, Rivera, and Dorado (“Defendants”) for deliberate indifference to the 

need for medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On September 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed an “Opposition to Defendants Responses for 

Production of Documents in Part No. 2 Request for Production,” which the Court construed as a 

motion to compel. (ECF No. 42.) On September 11, 2024, the Court issued an order directing 

the parties to meet and confer regarding the discovery dispute, and to file a joint statement 

following the parties’ conference. The Court stayed further briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel. (ECF No. 43.)

The parties’ Joint Statement, filed on October 15, 2024, states that despite both parties 

voicing their respective concerns, the parties were ultimately unable to resolve the discovery 

Case 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM Document 46 Filed 10/15/24 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

dispute. (ECF No. 45.) As such, Request for Production No. 2 is the only request at issue before 

this Court. (Id.) The joint statement is signed by Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants. (Id.)

Having considered the representations of the parties, the Court finds it appropriate to 

reinstate briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel regarding Request for Production No. 2 only. 

Any discovery issues already resolved during the meet and confer process need not be briefed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall 

file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel 

discovery, (ECF No. 42); and

2. Plaintiff shall file his reply, if any, within fourteen (14) days from the date of filing of 

Defendants’ response or opposition to the motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM Document 46 Filed 10/15/24 Page 2 of 2