Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02044/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02044-6/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 Anthony Johnson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s claim that he was denied 

adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On October 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his pending discovery 

requests. (ECF No. 28.)

On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the deadline to amend the pleadings, 

which expired November 16, 2014. (ECF No. 29.) 

In response to court order, Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s 

motions on December 15, 2014. (ECF Nos. 30, 31.) 

///

///

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DR. SISODIA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02044-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL DISCOVERY, GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE 

DEADLINE TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS, AND 

GRANTING DEFENDANTS REQUEST TO 

EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S 

DISCOVERY REQUESTS

[ECF Nos. 28, 29, 31]

Case 1:12-cv-02044-LJO-SAB Document 32 Filed 12/22/14 Page 1 of 3
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

I.

DISCUSSION

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that on notice to the other parties, a 

party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). “If a party 

fails to make a discovery required by Rule 26(a), any other party may move to compel disclosure and 

for appropriate sanctions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). 

Defense counsel does not oppose the grant of Plaintiff’s motion to compel based on the 

calendaring error by counsel. On May 16, 2014, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order, 

setting the discovery cut-off deadline as January 16, 2015. On May 23, 2014, Plaintiff propounded 

Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for Admissions on each of the four Defendants. 

On May 29, 2014, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Interrogatories on each of the four Defendants. 

Plaintiff’s discovery requests were not received by defense counsel until June 10, 2014. (ECF 

No. 31, Decl. of Kelli Hammond at ¶¶ 2-3.) At that time, counsel was out of office due to a family 

illness. Defendants requested and were granted an extension of time to serve their discovery 

responses. However, the responses were never completed or served based on an oversight by counsel. 

Defense counsel declares that the “failure to respond to Plaintiff’s discover[y] requests was based 

solely on my unintentional errors. I failed to calendar the new date for responding to Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests after seeking an extension of time. I also believed, wrongly it turned out, that this 

matter was going to settle and Defendants’ discovery responses would be unnecessary. It was not 

until Plaintiff filed his motion to compel that I investigated the matter and ascertained my errors.” 

(ECF No. 31, Decl. of Kelli Hammond at ¶ 9.) Counsel requests until January 15, 2015, to respond to 

Plaintiff’s pending discovery requests. Because Plaintiff indicates that he could not comply with the 

deadline to amend the pleadings because of Defendants failure to respond to his discovery requests, 

the Court will likewise extend the deadline to amend the pleading. 

Based on Plaintiff’s motion to compel and defense counsel’s response thereto, the Court will 

grant the motion to compel and on the basis of good cause will grant Defendants until January 16, 

2015, to serve their discovery responses. However, the parties are cautioned that the failure to respond 

to pending motions, by way of opposition or statement of non-opposition as required by Local Rule

Case 1:12-cv-02044-LJO-SAB Document 32 Filed 12/22/14 Page 2 of 3
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

230(l), impedes this Court’s ability to efficiently rule on the merits of the motion and hinders the

Court’s ability to move this case toward disposition, and may result in appropriate sanctions.

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s compel to compel, filed October 16, 2014, is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to extend the deadline to amend the pleadings, filed October 27, 

2014, is GRANTED; 

3. Defendants have to and including January 16, 2015, to serve their discovery 

responses; and

4. The new deadline to amend the pleadings is February 16, 2015. All other provisions 

of the Court’s May 16, 2014, order remain in full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02044-LJO-SAB Document 32 Filed 12/22/14 Page 3 of 3