IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 29, 2009
PETER DALE GRAVES, PLAINTIFF,
B. WILLIAMS, 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 and in forma pauperis, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 5, 2009, Plaintiff's request to propound additional deposition questions to Drs. Allen and Pepper, his treating physicians, were denied. Upon a motion for reconsideration, this order was affirmed, but Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to prove he has complied with Rule 26(a)(2), designating the doctors as expert witnesses.
Plaintiff has now filed "objections" (Doc. 186), in which he indicates he has in fact complied with Rule 26(a)(2), designating Drs. Allen, Pepper and Tanji as expert witnesses. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(a)(2). He is requesting Drs. Allen, Pepper and Tanji be allowed to answer the questions to which objections were sustained. Prior to issuing a ruling on this matter, the court will provide an opportunity for the defendants to address this issue.
Accordingly, within 30 days of the date of this order, that defendants may respond to Petitioner's claims that he has complied with Rule 26 in designating Drs. Allen, Pepper and Tanji as expert witnesses. In addition, the defendants may address their objections to the previously requested questions in light of Plaintiff's claim that the doctors have been designated as expert witnesses.*fn1
IT IS SO ORDERED.