IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 26, 2009
ROBERT MORRIS, PLAINTIFF,
D. HICKISON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
On November 30, 2008 and December 4, 2008, plaintiff served discovery responses. On January 14, 2009, defendants sought an extension of time to respond. Because of the upcoming discovery cutoff, only 14 additional days were granted. If plaintiff's current motion to compel is to be believed, defendants did not respond to the discovery as ordered. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery on March 5, 2009. Defendants now ask for additional time, up to April 23, 2009, in which to respond to the motion to compel.
This is precisely the scenario which set up the delayed adjudication of prisoner civil rights cases. However, determination of who is at fault, if not both, cannot be determined at this time because plaintiff has apparently inundated defendants with discovery, and defendants have apparently determined not to comply with the court's order to respond. Even if there had been a response, the court is sure that it would include numerous objections for which even more time would be required (objections which may well be waived at present).
Due to the voluminous nature of the discovery, the court will grant defendants an extension of time in which to respond to the motion to compel until April 17, 2009. Failure to respond may result in evidentiary or other sanctions. The court will determine whether a reply is necessary.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.