Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02246/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02246-18/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

KEVIN KING,

Plaintiff, No. 2:04-cv-02246 ALA P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

____________________________/

Plaintiff Kevin King is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in the civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 2, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to compel

Defendants to produce certain discovery items. On January 10, 2008, Defendants filed an

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion claiming that Plaintiff had requested the discovery after the time

allowed for discovery had expired.

Any party has the right to discovery of “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the

claim or defense of any party....” ; thus, the scope of discovery under FED. R.CIV.P. 26(b)(1) is

broad. Discovery may be sought of relevant information not admissible at trial “if the discovery

appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. The court,

however, may limit discovery if it “....is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” or can be

Case 2:04-cv-02246-ALA Document 79 Filed 01/14/08 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

obtained from another source “that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; or if

the party who seeks discovery “has had ample opportunity by discovery ...to obtain the

information sought”; or if the proposed discovery is overly burdensome. FED. R.CIV.P.

26(b)(2)(i)(ii) and (iii). If a party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a), any other

party may move to compel disclosure. FED. R. CIV P. 37(a)(2)(a).

On May 23, 2007, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this matter filed an order that allowed

the parties to conduct discovery until September 28, 2007. On August 24, 2007, this court

extended that deadline to October 29, 2007. Plaintiff admits that Defendants received the

requested discovery after the period for discovery had expired but claims that, “Plaintiff is

supposed to be allowed more time.... because Plaintiff filed [an earlier] motion to compel.” 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel at 2. Plaintiff cites no authority for this claim and Plaintiff’s prior

motion to compel was denied. 

Plaintiff had ample opportunity to complete discovery under the court’s scheduling order. 

The requested discovery is sought outside of the period allowed for discovery. Plaintiff’s motion

to compel will therefore be denied. 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s January 2, 2008, motion to compel is

DENIED. 

/////

DATED: January 14, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:04-cv-02246-ALA Document 79 Filed 01/14/08 Page 2 of 2