IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 21, 2010
CHARLES ROBERT GORTON, PLAINTIFF,
TODD, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
On April 30, 2010, defendants Todd, Martinez, Naseer, Hawkins, Smith, Nale and Williams filed a motion for summary judgment. On May 7, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to stay the motion for summary judgment as plaintiff had "not been granted any Order for discovery" for these defendants. Plaintiff is confused. Plaintiff does not need permission from the court to conduct discovery. Plaintiff seems to be referring to the court's May 28, 2010, Discovery and Scheduling Order that described generally how discovery is conducted and referenced another set of defendants. Doc. 21. The court does not issue an Order each time a defendant answers the complaint. The defendants who plaintiff did not conduct discovery on, answered the complaint approximately 10 days after the court issued the Discovery and Scheduling Order on May 28, 2010, for the other set of defendants.
Plaintiff has not supplied an adequate explanation on why he decided not to commence discovery against these defendants over the course of the last year or why plaintiff has waited until now to request permission to conduct discovery when defendant have just filed a motion for summary judgment. On July 22, 2009, plaintiff file a request concerning the status of another defendant, H. Rad. Doc. 27. On August 4, 2009, the court issued an Order explaining that defendant H. Rad had previously answered the complaint and plaintiff could conduct discovery on defendant Rad until November 6, 2009. Doc. 28. Defendant H. Rad answered the complaint less than two weeks before the instant defendants answered who plaintiff has not conducted discovery on, yet for some unexplained reasons plaintiff chose not pursue discovery on these defendants or inquire to the court for status.
Moreover, plaintiff has not provided any specific information concerning what discovery he needs from these defendants, simply stating he is at a disadvantage. As plaintiff has not explained what discovery he will be requesting, the court will only provide a limited time for plaintiff and these defendants to conduct discovery. No extensions will be granted. The court will also vacate the April 30, 2010, motion for summary judgment and defendants will be provided an opportunity to re-notice the summary judgment motion at a later date.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The April 30, 2010, motion for summary judgment (Doc. 71) is vacated and defendants will be provided an opportunity to re-notice the motion at a later date;
2. The motion to stay (Doc. 72) is vacated;
3. Plaintiff and defendants Todd, Martinez, Naseer, Hawkins, Smith, Nale and Williams may conduct discovery upon each other until August 18, 2010; any motion to compel shall be filed by that date; all requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34 or 36 shall be served not later than sixty days prior to that date. No extensions will be granted.
4. Plaintiff's May 19, 2010, motion for an extension to file a reply to summary judgment is denied. Plaintiff shall reply to the motion for summary judgment when then the motion is re-noticed.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.