IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 11, 2009
WILLIAM THOMAS COATS, PLAINTIFF,
JOHN MCGUINESS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are motions to compel filed by plaintiff on March 25, 2009 (no. 67), and March 27, 2009 (no. 69). Also pending is plaintiff's March 25, 2009, motion for extension of time to conduct discovery (no. 68). For the following reasons, these motions are denied.
Motions to Compel
The March 25, 2009, motion to compel concerns responses by defendant Cabrera to 20 interrogatories. The March 27, 2009, motion to compel concerns responses by defendant Hailey to 22 interrogatories. The motions are substantively identical in that they argue that defendants failed to answer these interrogatories with a "simple yes or no answer." Plaintiff also generally argues that defendants' responses are evasive and deceptive.
While plaintiff argues that defendants should have provided "yes" or "no" answers, he does not address the specific responses provided by defendants to each interrogatory. Interrogatory no. 4 asked defendant Hailey if he filed any reports on the August 29, 2007, incident. Defendant responded, "Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to 'reports' and 'this incident.' Without waiving these objections, defendant responds: defendant did not prepare documentation concerning the incident alleged in the complaint." Because defendant appears to have answered this interrogatory, plaintiff's objection to it is not clear.
The court will not go through each of the 42 interrogatories identified by plaintiff to determine whether defendants posed valid objections or otherwise adequately responded. Because plaintiff himself failed to specifically address why each of the at-issue responses is invalid, the court finds that his motions are not well supported. On this ground, the motions to compel are denied.
Motion for Extension of Time
Pursuant to the November 20, 2008, scheduling order, the discovery cut-off date was April 3, 2009. In the pending request for extension of time, plaintiff requests an additional thirty days to conduct discovery because he was transferred to High Desert State Prison on January 27, 2009, but did not receive his legal property until March 16, 2009.
In the pending motion, plaintiff does not describe the additional discovery he intends to conduct. Without this information, the court cannot evaluate plaintiff's motion. On this ground, the motion is denied. In addition, on July 17, 2008, the court issued a discovery order advising the parties of the procedures for conducting discovery. Plaintiff has had adequate time to conduct discovery.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's March 25, 2009, motion to compel (no. 67) is denied;
2. Plaintiff's March 25, 2009, motion for extension of time to conduct discovery (no. 68) is denied;
3. Plaintiff's March 27, 2009, motion to compel (no. 69) is denied.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.