Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05878/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05878-28/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

JOHN E. JAMES, III., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 04-5878 REC DLB P 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

INTERROGATORIES

(DOC 133)

I. Background

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint,

filed against numerous correctional guards at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) for allegedly using

excessive force on July 16, 2003, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the court is

plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories. Defendants filed an opposition to the

motion on July 10, 2006. Plaintiff filed a reply on August 8, 2006.

Plaintiff contends and defendants do not dispute, that he served defendants with

interrogatories in February 2006. Defendants contend that pursuant to the scheduling order issued

July 14, 2005, the discovery deadline was March 13, 2006 and therefore the interrogatories were

Case 1:04-cv-05878-LJO -DLB Document 172 Filed 01/17/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

untimely. 

Defendants acknowledge that pursuant to plaintiff’s request, on March 8, 2006, the Court

modified the scheduling order thereby extending the discovery cutoff to May 14, 2006. Defendants

represent that plaintiff re-served the interrogatories in April 2006, making them again untimely. On

June 5, 2006, defense counsel advised plaintiff that his interrogatories were untimely and no

responses would be forthcoming. This motion to compel followed.

II. Discussion

Subsequent to the parties’ briefing on this motion, defendants requested and the court granted

an extension of the schedule in this case to allow them to file a motion for summary judgment. The

order issued September 25, 2006 extended the discovery deadline to December 11, 2007 and the

dispositive motion deadline to February 12, 2007. In extending the schedule, the Court expected

both parties to cooperate to ensure that the discovery required to bring and oppose a motion for

summary judgment, was complete. Accordingly, due to the extension of the discovery deadline,

after defendants were served with the subject interrogatories and the benefit to both parties in having

this case heard on the merits, defendants are ordered to serve responses to the interrogatories. Said

responses shall be served on plaintiff within 20 days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 16, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05878-LJO -DLB Document 172 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 2