Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00976/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00976-1/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

I. Background

Plaintiff Howard Lawrence Turner (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against R. 

Cortez for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

Defendant R. Cortez answered the complaint on September 15, 2014. Thereafter, on September 22, 

2014, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. Pursuant to that order, the discovery 

deadline is May 22, 2015, and responses to written discovery are due forty-five days after the request 

is first served. (ECF No. 18.)

HOWARD LAWRENCE TURNER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. CORTEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00976-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ORDER COMPELLING DISCOERY AS 

PREMATURE

(ECF No. 19)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

DISCOVERY 

(ECF No. 20)

Case 1:13-cv-00976-LJO-BAM Document 21 Filed 01/05/15 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

On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery responses. Plaintiff seeks 

to compel responses to interrogatories served on November 3, 2014. The interrogatories are signed 

and dated on November 13, 2014. (ECF No. 19.) 

On December 29, 2014, Defendant Cortez filed the instant request for an extension of time to 

respond to Plaintiff’s “First Request for Production of Documents,” “Request for Admissions, and 

“First Set of Interrogatories.” Defense counsel reports that the discovery requests were received on 

November 17, 2014. Although none of the requests included a proof of service, each request was 

dated November 13, 2014. (ECF No. 20; Declaration of Arthur B. Mark III ¶ 2 and Exs. A, B, and C.) 

Defendant Cortez asserts that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is premature because responses to 

interrogatories are not due until December 31, 2014 (45-days plus 3 for service by mail pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and 6). (ECF No. 20, p. 2, n. 2.)

The Court finds further responses to the motion to compel and the request for an extension of 

time unnecessary. The motions are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery

On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff moved to compel responses to interrogatories signed and 

dated November 13, 2014. (ECF No. 19, pp. 3-6.) Pursuant to the Court’s discovery order, responses 

are due forty-five (45) days after service. Based on a presumed service date of November 13, 2014, 

Defendant Cortez’s discovery responses are due on December 31, 2014. This calculation is based on 

the 45 days allowed by the Court’s discovery order and the addition of 3 days due to service of the 

interrogatories by mail. (ECF No. 18; Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, 6(d).) Based on the due date, Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel discovery responses, filed on December 22, 2014, is premature and shall be denied. 

III. Defendant’s Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery Requests

On December 29, 2014, Defendant Cortez requested a twenty-day extension of time to January 

20, 2015, to respond to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, requests for admissions and 

first set of interrogatories. Defendant’s counsel explains that additional time is necessary to draft 

responses, have them reviewed by Defendant Cortez and to review and prepare documents for 

Case 1:13-cv-00976-LJO-BAM Document 21 Filed 01/05/15 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

production. Counsel further explains that additional time is necessary because of deadlines in other 

matters and because of limited staffing during the holidays. 

The Court finds good cause for the requested extension and Defendant’s request shall be 

granted. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by this short extension of time. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling discovery, filed on December 22, 2014, is 

DENIED as premature;

2. Defendant’s request for an extension of time to respond to discovery is GRANTED; and

3. Defendant shall serve responses to Plaintiff’s first request for production of documents, 

requests for admissions set one and first set of interrogatories on or before January 20, 

2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00976-LJO-BAM Document 21 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 3