Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Watson v. Dowling

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 25, 2009

KEN WATSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
B. DOWLING, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Wunderlich United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER RE MOTIONS (DOC 22. 26)

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, is proceeding pro se in a civil rights action against Defendant Dowling. Pending before the court is Defendant's motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has also filed a motion titled as a motion for discovery.

On July 28, 2008, Defendant's attorney served Plaintiff with a notice of taking deposition. Plaintiff failed to appear for his deposition. The day after the close of discovery, Plaintiff filed a letter with the court titled as a motion for discovery. Plaintiff seeks information regarding "atternal[sic] affair of Corcoran investigation reports, video tapes of myself and witness and the evidence that need to be turn over by the general. And any other evidence against B. Dowling." As to Plaintiff's request, the court denies the request for discovery. Aside from its filing after the close of discovery, Plaintiff fails to submit any proper request for discovery propounded on Defendant.

Plaintiff has since been returned to the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and again released. Defendant notes that because Plaintiff has failed to appear for his discovery before the discovery deadline, Defendant has been unable to acquire discovery necessary to preparation of a dispositive motion. The court will therefore extend discovery in order for counsel for Defendant to take Plaintiff's deposition.

The court declines to impose sanctions at this time. However, Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to appear for a properly noticed deposition may subject him to liability for the costs incurred. Plaintiff may also be subject to further sanctions, including dismissal of this action, for his failure to appear at a properly noticed deposition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for discovery is denied.

2. Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff's deposition is granted. Plaintiff is directed to appear at a properly noticed deposition.

3. Discovery is extended in order for Defendant to take Plaintiff's deposition. 4. The parties are directed to submit status reports within sixty days of the date of service of this order, including proposed deadlines for the filing of dispositive motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090325

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.