Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02853/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02853-0/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 09cv2853-W

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP CHARLES SNEED, Civil No. 09cv2853-W (BGS)

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

COMPLETE DISCOVERY

[Docs. Nos. 47, 51.]

v.

C. LIRA; O. NAVARRO,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action for violations of his civil rights

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to

interrogatories propounded upon Defendants Lira and Navarro. (Doc. No. 47). In response, on March

17, 2011, Defendants filed an opposition asking the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No. 49). 

Therein Defendants claimed, inter alia, that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff’s discovery

requests were untimely. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff then filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline. (Doc.

No. 51). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s current motion for extension of time to conduct discovery presents specific discovery

needs and identifies circumstances preventing his ability to comply with the Court’s scheduling order.

(See Doc. No. 51, at 2–3). Plaintiff seeks to extend discovery to make timely the interrogatories he

served upon Defendants and, in turn, he also moves to compel Defendants’ response to those

interrogatories. (Id.). Unlike Plaintiff’s previous requests to extend the discovery deadline, the

immediate motion stresses that he was unable to obtain necessary subpoena forms until March 3, 2011.

Case 3:09-cv-02853-W-MDD Document 52 Filed 04/19/11 Page 1 of 3
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 09cv2853-W

(Id. at 3–4). Plaintiff sought the subpoenas to obtain documents relating to complaints against

Defendants, past incidents with inmates, and work history. (Doc. No. 51, at 3). Plaintiff’s

interrogatories and document requests ask Defendants to provide documents relating to the same subject

matter Plaintiff sought to obtain by subpoena. (See Doc. No. 47, at 7–13). In November 2010, Plaintiff

formally requested the subpoenas. (Doc. No. 33). Through no fault of his own, Plaintiff was deprived

of these discovery tools until over a month after the discovery deadline. 

“Rule 16(b) provides that a district court’s scheduling order may be modified upon a showing of

‘good cause,’ an inquiry which focuses on the reasonable diligence of the moving party.” Noyes v.

Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992)). Plaintiff, by formally requesting the subpoenas, demonstrated

reasonable diligence in conducting discovery. Plaintiff likely awaited receipt of the subpoenas before

serving his interrogatories in order to receive information that would allow him to propound more

effective interrogatories, or determine that certain interrogatory requests were unnecessary. Plaintiff’s

motion for an order permitting him to depose Defendants Lira and Navarro also evidences that Plaintiff

was actively pursuing discovery during the allotted time. (See Doc. No. 35). Furthermore Plaintiff, an

incarcerated pro se litigant, sent his interrogatories on January 3, 2011 and January 9, 2011, believing

they were timely under the February 1, 2011 discovery deadline. (Doc. No. 51, at 3). Although pro se

litigants are required to follow the same procedural rules as represented parties, courts “are generally

more solicitous of the rights of pro se litigants, particularly when technical jurisdictional requirements

are involved.” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1365 n.10 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Borzeka v.

Heckler, 739 F.2d 444, 447 n.2 (9th Cir.1984)). 

The Court finds Defendants’ arguments for denying Plaintiff’s request for additional time

unpersuasive. Defendants’ opposition presents three grounds for denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel

discovery: (1) untimeliness, (2) that Plaintiff has been twice denied a time extension, and that (3)

Plaintiff failed to meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel prior to filing the motion to compel. (Doc.

No. 49, at 2). Regarding the third ground, the Court has already made clear that Plaintiff will not be

denied relief for failing to either file a joint motion or to meet and confer. (Doc. No. 43, at 3). 

Moreover, the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s prior motions does not necessarily preclude an extension at

Case 3:09-cv-02853-W-MDD Document 52 Filed 04/19/11 Page 2 of 3
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

3 09cv2853-W

this juncture. The first order denying an extension was without prejudice; thus, that denial does not

preclude Plaintiff from seeking an extension. (Doc. No. 43, at 3). The second order denied Plaintiff’s

request to extend the deadline for all discovery until after his release in July 2011. (Doc. No. 45, at 1). 

Plaintiff’s current motion seeks only to make timely interrogatories that, according to Defendants, were

ten days late. (Doc. No. 49, at 2). The good cause showing required to grant a limited two-week

extension differs substantially from that required for an extension of over five months. Thus, by

rejecting Plaintiff’s motion to extend discovery until July 25, 2011, the Court did not preclude

subsequent requests for an extension. Plaintiff’s current request articulates new grounds demonstrating

good cause and asks for a much shorter extension. Finally, the immediate motion is distinct from those

prior because this request is narrowly tailored to allowing Plaintiff to obtain answers to interrogatories. 

(Doc. No. 51, at 2).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established good cause and that an

extension will not unduly prejudice Defendants. Accordingly, Defendants must answer or object to each

individual interrogatory pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 33. Defendants must serve

responses no later than May 9, 2011. Plaintiff will have 30 days from the date he is served with

responses to seek the Court’s intervention in any further discovery disputes arising from the responses. 

All other fact discovery that Plaintiff seeks must be propounded no later than May 4, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 19, 2011

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-02853-W-MDD Document 52 Filed 04/19/11 Page 3 of 3