Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00399/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00399-18/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Acevedo
Defendant
D. Davey
Defendant
Stewart Manago
Plaintiff
A. Maxfield
Defendant
E. Razo
Defendant
M.V. Sexton
Defendant
A. Valdez
Defendant
J. Vanderpoel
Defendant

Document Text:

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

STUART MANAGO,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

DAVEY, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:16-cv-00399-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO SERVE RESPONSES TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS

(ECF No. 59.)

DEADLINE: December 19, 2016

Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 

Complaint commencing this action on March 24, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds 

with the First Amended Complaint filed on April 18, 2016, against defendants J. Acevedo, D. 

Davey, A. Maxfield, E. Razo, M.V. Sexton, A. Valdez, and J. Vanderpoel (collectively,

“Defendants”), on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims. (ECF No. 22.) This case is 

now in the discovery phase.

On November 14, 2016, Defendants filed a request for an extension of time to serve 

discovery responses. (ECF No. 59.) Defense counsel declares that the discovery requests by 

Plaintiff in this case are voluminous, seek information dating back to 1989, and require 

speaking with each of the seven Defendants, as well as conducting an in-depth review of 

Case 1:16-cv-00399-DAD-GSA Document 60 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff’s lengthy C-File. (De La Torre-Fennell Decl., ECF No. 59 ¶6.) Defense counsel is 

also examining documents to determine whether any of them are privileged and, if so, prepare a 

privilege log and necessary supporting declarations. (Id.) 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants have been diligent in 

responding to discovery, and their request for extension of time shall be granted.

Therefore, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ request for extension of time, filed on November 14, 2016, is 

GRANTED; and

2. On or before December 19, 2016, Defendants shall provide responses to 

Plaintiff’s first set of request for production of documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2016 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00399-DAD-GSA Document 60 Filed 11/17/16 Page 2 of 2