The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW (DOC NO. 34) AND DISREGARDING SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL
ORDER DENYING THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff Aasim Nia ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's complaint, filed April 16, 2008, against Defendant Derral Adams for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.*fn1 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion to compel, filed April 8, 2010, and Plaintiff's third motion to compel, filed June 21, 2010. (Pl.'s Second Mot. Compel, DOC. No.30; Pl.'s Third Mot. Compel, DOC No. 35.) The Court addresses each in turn.
II. Second Motion To Compel
Defendant filed an opposition to the second motion to compel on April 29, 2010. (Def.'s Opp'n, DOC No. 32.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff's second motion to compel repeats the same request raised in Plaintiff's first motion to compel, which was resolved by a separate order.
On May 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the second motion to compel. (Pl.'s Mot. Withdraw, DOC No. 34.) Plaintiff contends that he filed the second motion to compel to preserve his discovery request. (Pl.'s Mot. 1:24-2:1.) That motion is unnecessary. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to withdraw, filed May 17, 2010, is GRANTED and Plaintiff's second motion to compel, filed April 8, 2010, is DISREGARDED.
III. Third Motion To Compel
Plaintiff filed his third motion to compel on June 21, 2010. (Pl.'s Third Mot. Compel (hereinafter "Mot. Compel"), DOC No. 35.) Defendant filed an opposition on July 12, 2010. (Def.'s Opp'n, DOC No. 36.)
Defendant contends that Plaintiff's motion to compel is untimely, because it was filed more than six weeks after Defendant served Plaintiff with his responses. (Def.'s Opp'n 2:15-19.) However, Plaintiff in his motion withdrawing his second motion to compel also requested leave to file a motion to compel further response after receiving Defendant's responses. (Pl.'s Mot. 2:7-22, filed May 17, 2010, DOC No. 34.) Thus, Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a motion to compel was made in a timely manner. Because Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file a third motion to compel.
A. Request For Production No. 1
Pl.'s Request: The plaintiff would like documentation of the visiting schedule for facility 3A yard for the year of 2007 through 2008 (i.e. how the visiting was operated, what groups of inmates was allow to use the visiting room at what time. By what group, I want to know what racial groups, gang groups, etc., were allow to ...