Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380-44/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:08cv1380-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL 

REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION 

TO HIS MOTION TO COMPEL AND 

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (ECF No. 

164)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 

PROVIDE STATUS OF DISCOVERY 

RESPONSES

SEVEN-DAY DEADLINE

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 6, 2012, the Court reopened 

discovery for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff to propound ten (10) interrogatories each 

to Defendants David, Miranda and Martinez. (ECF No. 145.) On November 2, 2012, Plaintiff 

filed a motion to compel responses to his interrogatories. (ECF No. 153.) Defendants filed an 

opposition on December 17, 2012, explaining that they did not receive Plaintiff’s interrogatories 

until September 12, 2012, and during preparation of responses, defense counsel lost the draft 

responses not once, but twice due to computer issues. Defense counsel requested additional 

time, to and including January 3, 2013, to serve responses. (ECF No. 162.) On January 9, 2013, 

Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 163.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting to 

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 165 Filed 03/27/13 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

file a supplemental reply to Defendants’ opposition to his motion to compel. The motion 

included his proposed reply. (ECF No. 164.) The Court has reviewed the proposed 

supplemental reply and finds that it provides pertinent information regarding the status of 

Defendants’ discovery responses. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental reply is 

GRANTED. 

In his supplemental reply, Plaintiff indicated that, as of January 16, 2013, he had not 

received Defendants’ responses to his interrogatories. (ECF No. 164, p. 1.) According to the 

docket, Defendants have not filed a supplemental opposition and have not provided any 

information regarding the status of their discovery responses. Therefore, Defendants are 

REQUIRED to notify the Court of the status of their discovery responses within seven days from 

the date of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

10c20kb8554

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 165 Filed 03/27/13 Page 2 of 2