Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01285/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01285-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martinez
Defendant
J. McKesson
Defendant
Tuzon
Defendant
Cesar Uribe
Plaintiff
Zaragosa
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

 (1:08-cv-01285-DMS-NLS) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CESAR URIBE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

J. McKESSON; MARTINEZ; 

ZARAGOSA; A. TUZON, 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:08-cv-01285-DMS-NLS 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR 14-DAY EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY 

REQUESTS [Doc. No. 47]; 

(2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR 

18-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

[Doc. No. 46]; and 

(3) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION TO 

COMPEL [Doc. No. 45]. 

On March 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories sets two 

and three that he propounded on defendants McKesson, Martinez and Tuzon. [Dkt. No. 45.] 

Defendants had failed to respond within the allotted time. On March 22, 2010, Defendants filed a 

motion for an 18-day extension of time to respond to the discovery requests. [Dkt. No. 46.] 

Then, they filed an amended motion for a 14-day extension of time to respond to the discovery 

requests. [Dkt. No. 47.] Defendants assert that due to inadvertence and excusable neglect, 

Defendants did not respond yet to the interrogatories because defense counsel did not obtain 

Case 1:08-cv-01285-SMS Document 49 Filed 03/23/10 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 

 (1:08-cv-01285-DMS-NLS) 

verifications in support of Defendants’ responses. Defendants ask for the 14-day extension to 

obtain the verifications, finalize and serve their responses. They also ask that the court dismiss 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel without prejudice because they will serve the responses by April 5, 

2010, making the issue in the motion to compel moot at this point in time. 

For good cause shown in the declaration of defense counsel, the court GRANTS

Defendants’ motion for the 14-day extension of time to respond to the interrogatories. [Dkt. No. 

47.] Defendants are granted until Monday, April 5, 2010, to respond to Plaintiff’s sets of 

interrogatories. Further, the court DENIES as moot Defendants’ motion for an 18-day extension 

of time [Dkt. No. 46] and DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to 

Plaintiff’s interrogatories [Dkt. No. 45]. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 23, 2010 

 ____________________________ 

 Hon. Nita L. Stormes 

 U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:08-cv-01285-SMS Document 49 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 2