Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01357/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01357-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD STELLMACHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERTO M. GUERRERO et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-01357-JAM-CKD

ORDER

(ECF No. 99)

Presently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to requests for 

production. (ECF No. 99). Defendant has filed an opposition, and plaintiff a reply. (ECF Nos. 

105, 107.)

Plaintiff seeks to compel responses due to defendant’s complete failure to respond to 

discovery. (See ECF No. 99.) However, on February 18, 2020—the same date plaintiff filed the 

present motion to compel—defendant mailed responses and documents to plaintiff, which were 

received on February 20. (See ECF No. 105.)1

Because defendant has responded to discovery, although the documents were received two 

days later than the date plaintiff set, the present motion to compel is moot, and is therefore 

1 The court notes that plaintiff was in possession of defendant’s discovery responses on February 

26, 2020 but failed to inform the court that responses were received in his supplemental 

declaration filed on that date. 

Case 2:10-cv-01357-JAM-CKD Document 108 Filed 04/14/20 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

2

DENIED. While plaintiff raises deficiencies with some of defendant’s individual responses in his 

reply (ECF No. 107), it is unclear which specific responses he is challenging. Additionally, 

defendant—proceeding pro se—is not afforded the proper opportunity to respond to plaintiff’s 

arguments raised for the first time in his reply. 

Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 99) without 

prejudice of raising objections to individual responses that plaintiff deems improper. 

Dated: April 14, 2020

16.stell.1357

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-01357-JAM-CKD Document 108 Filed 04/14/20 Page 2 of 2