Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01384/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01384-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Manfredi
Defendant
Arthur Matus
Plaintiff
Paul Van Dalen
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR MATUS, CASE NO. CV F 05-1384 REC LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

DISCOVERY RESPONSES EXTENSION

vs. (Doc. 33.)

SGT. RICHARD MANFREDI, JR.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Arthur Matus (“plaintiff”) is incarcerated and proceeds pro se in this excessive force

action against defendants Fresno Police Officers Paul Van Dalen (“Officer Van Dalen”) and Richard

Manfredi, Jr. (“Officer Manfredi”). On July 14, 2006, plaintiff filed his motion to seek a 30-day

extension to serve responses to Officers Van Dalen and Manfredi’s first sets of interrogatories and

Officer Manfredi’s first set of document requests. Officers Van Dalen and Manfredi served their

respective discovery sets on May 24, 2006 and filed papers to oppose plaintiff’s extension motion to

point out that plaintiff failed to provide factual or legal support for an extension.

Plaintiff has had sufficient time to respond to Officers Van Dalen and Manfredi’s interrogatories

and document requests. A 30-day extension sought by plaintiff would serve only to thwart and delay

Officers Van Dalen and Manfredi’s legitimate discovery. As such, this Court ORDERS plaintiff, no

later than July 28, 2006, to:

1. SERVE complete, straightforward responses to Officers Van Dalen and Manfredi’s

Case 1:05-cv-01384-LJO -LJO Document 34 Filed 07/17/06 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

respective first sets of interrogatories; and

2. SERVE complete, straightforward responses to Officer Manfredi’s first set of document

requests and to produce to defense counsel all documents and things in plaintiff’s

possession, custody and control and subject to the document requests.

This Court admonishes plaintiff that failure to comply with this order and with plaintiff’s

discovery obligations may result in a defense motion and/or this Court’s order to dismiss this

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01384-LJO -LJO Document 34 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 2