IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 3, 2010
LEVON D. GRAHAM, PLAINTIFF,
D.L. RUNNELS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to reconsider a discovery order issued by Magistrate Judge Hollows. In this case, plaintiff alleges that defendants used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment during a cell extraction. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's denial of his motion to extend the discovery deadlines. Dkt. No. 31. The standard for motions to reconsider is that orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303(f).
Based upon the record available in this case, the court cannot determine if the discovery order at issue was clearly erroneous. Nonetheless, because (1) plaintiff has indicated that defendants have not produced any documents or other materials in response to his discovery requests and (2) defendants have indicated that they have in their possession responsive documents and other materials, the court grants plaintiff's motion in part. The court finds that allowing plaintiff discovery so that he is able to try his case serves the interests of justice and judicial economy.
For the foregoing reasons, the court orders as follows:
(1) Plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production shall be propounded to defendants within ninety (90) days of the issuance of this order;
(2) Defendants shall respond to plaintiff's requests within forty-five (45) days of their receipt of such requests; and
(3) The Magistrate Judge shall amend the scheduling order in this case as necessary to reflect these discovery modifications.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.