IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 22, 2009
STEVE SANCHEZ, PLAINTIFF,
PENNER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has moved to compel defendants to respond to plaintiff's second set of interrogatories. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B). For the reasons explained below, plaintiff's motion must be denied.
This action proceeds on the March 20, 2007, complaint. On April 2, 2008, the court issued a scheduling order which set May 26, 2008 as the deadline for completion of all discovery. The order also required that motions to compel discovery be filed no later than July 25, 2008. Without saying when, plaintiff asserts that he served a first set of interrogatories on defendant Penner. Plaintiff also asserts that defendant Penner responded to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories, but did not answer the majority of them. He asserts that Penner expressed a need for plaintiff's medical records in order to answer.*fn1 Thus, he says, he sent Penner copies of his medical records. On July 3, 2008, plaintiff served defendant Penner with a second set of interrogatories. Plaintiff does not explain why he served a second set of interrogatories given that he had already served but not received a complete response to his first set. Penner does not mention the first set or the need for plaintiff's medical records. Plaintiff served his second set of interrogatories after the time for conducting discovery had closed. He also filed his motion to compel after the time for filing such motions had passed. Plaintiff has not sought an order modifying the scheduling order, nor has he addressed the standard (i.e., a showing of good cause) for any such modification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Since the second set of interrogatories and the motion are late, the motion must be denied.
Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that plaintiff's September 8, 2008, motion to compel is denied.