01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL DISCOVERY; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

SIDNEY CHARLES RANDALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. LARSON, 

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0798-JCC-MAT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY;

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has

filed a “second motion to compel discovery from defendant” and a request for an extension of

time. (Dkt. #48). Defendant has not filed a response to the motion. (Dkt. #40). Having reviewed

plaintiff’s motion and the balance of the record, the Court does hereby find and ORDER as

follows:

(1) On March 2, 2007, the Court granted plaintiff’s first motion to compel discovery

from defendant and directed defendant to respond to certain discovery requests from plaintiff.

(Dkt. #43). It appears that defendant complied with this Order, as plaintiff, in his current motion,

states that he received the responses from defendant on March 13, 2007. (Dkt. #48 at 2).

However, plaintiff asserts now that one of the responses has prompted the need for further

information. Specifically, plaintiff states that he would like defendant “to produce all documents

Case 2:06-cv-00798-JCC Document 49 Filed 04/17/07 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL DISCOVERY; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

PAGE -2

that support and outline the policies” regarding permitting inmates who have had their water shut

off, to use a bathroom and obtain drinking water outside their cell. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is premature. It does not appear that plaintiff has asked

defendant to provide this information; if he has, and defendant has refused to provide the

requested documents, it does not appear that plaintiff has attempted to resolve this matter without

court intervention, as required by Local Rule CR 37(a)(2)(A) (“A good faith effort to confer with

a party or person not making a disclosure or discovery requires a face-to-face meeting or a

telephonic conference.”). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Dkt. #48) is

DENIED without prejudice to plaintiff refiling the motion, if necessary, at a later point.

(2) Although the Court has already granted plaintiff two extensions of time, due to the

circumstances described above and plaintiff’s status as an incarcerated pro se litigant, the Court

will accommodate his request for a further extension of time. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for

an extension of time to complete discovery in this case (Dkt. #48) is GRANTED. The following

new deadlines shall apply: Discovery shall be completed by June 16, 2007. Dispositive motions

shall be filed by July 17, 2007. The parties shall file a Joint Pretrial Statement by September 18,

2007. No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for

defendant, and to the Honorable John C. Coughenour.

DATED this 17th day of April, 2007.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00798-JCC Document 49 Filed 04/17/07 Page 2 of 2