IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 12, 2008
THOMAS CLINTON, PLAINTIFF,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are two motions plaintiff has filed. The first is titled "SPECIAL INTEROGATORIES [sic] ONE THRU ONE OF THIRTY-THREE Motion to Compel" (Doc. 202), the second is titled "MOTION REQUESTING DISMISSAL SANCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT [TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH SPECIAL INTEROGATORY [sic] ONE THRU ONE OF THIRTY-THREE]" (Doc. 203).
In these motions, plaintiff is requesting the court order defendants to respond to a special interrogatory he propounded on October 18, 2008. He has provided the court with a copy of his request as well as the defendants' response. One of the reasons the defendants objected to the discovery request was because it was untimely.
Discovery is closed in this case. Pursuant to this court's scheduling order, issued January 4, 2008, all discovery was due by June 27, 2008. The parties have requested a modification of the discovery deadlines set forth in the scheduling order, but with the exception of plaintiff's deposition, the court has denied the requests. (See Doc. 97, 185). Plaintiff's discovery requests were propounded after discovery was closed, and are therefore untimely. In addition, any motion to compel discovery was to be filed by the discovery cut-off date of June 27, 2008. Plaintiff's motion to compel was filed on November 4, 2008, which is also untimely. Accordingly, plaintiff's motions to compel (Docs. 202, 203) are denied as untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.