The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 27)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE/ (ECF NO. 32)
Plaintiff Jean-Pierre K. Thomas ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants Bonilla and M. Garcia for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed January 19, 2010, and Plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery cut-off date, filed March 9, 2010. Defendant Bonilla filed an opposition to the motion to compel on February 9, 2010.
Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Bonilla to serve responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Admission and answers to the interrogatories related to the admissions, further response to Interrogatories 9, 10, 22, and 35, and production of all medical records related to the October 5, 2006 incident.
Defendant's counsel discovered that the admission responses were inadvertently not timely served. (Def.'s Opp'n, Constance Picciano Decl. ¶ 5.) The admission responses were served February 8, 2010. (Id. ¶ 6.) It appears that Defendant intended to respond to Plaintiff's request for admissions in a timely manner, but through inadvertence, failed to do so. However, Rule 36 is self effectuating 3) Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding. A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. A shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.
Defendants may move for relief pursuant to Rule 36(b)
(b) Effect of an Admission; Withdrawing or Amending It. A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended. Subject to Rule 16(e), the court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits. An admission under this rule is not an admission for any other purpose and cannot be used against the party in any other proceeding.
Plaintiff links Interrogatories Nos. 1-4 to Request For Admission No. 1, Interrogatories Nos. 5-7 to Request For Admission No. 2, and Interrogatories Nos. 17-19 to Request for Admission No. 3. The Court will not require Defendant to respond to interrogatories that are linked to requests for admission which have been deemed admitted.
If Plaintiff still desires further responses to these interrogatories he may re-drafts the interrogatories and removing references to requests for admission, and ask direct questions without reference to Plaintiff's version of events on October 5, 2006. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to these interrogatories is moot.
Interrogatory No. 9: Identify and attach copies of each and every inmate complaint from 2000 to date, alleging the excessive or ...