The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jan M. Adler U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANTS TO COOPERATE IN DISCOVERY [Doc. 140]; ORDER SETTING FORTH REMAINING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On July 28, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff Rodney Wayne Jones's ("Plaintiff") ex parte request for permission to file a late motion for an order compelling Defendants to cooperate in discovery, and deemed Plaintiff's motion to compel filed as of that date. Doc. 141. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") Defendants (i.e., all defendants except Ronald Pegues ("Pegues"), who is represented by separate counsel) filed an opposition to the motion to compel on August 10, 2010. Doc. 143. Defendant Pegues did not file an opposition.
The Court finds this matter suitable for submission without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1 d.1., and accordingly DENIES Plaintiff's request for oral argument. Further, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth in further detail below.
Discovery Propounded Upon Defendant Pegues
Plaintiff states that Defendant Pegues has refused to respond to any discovery.
Pl.'s Mem. at 2-3, 5. According to the exhibits attached to Plaintiff's motion, Plaintiff served interrogatories upon Pegues on August 24, 2009, requests for admission on January 7, 2010, and requests for production of documents on January 31, 2010.
Pl. Decl., Exs. A, F, & I. Pegues does not oppose Plaintiff's motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel the production of discovery from Defendant Pegues is GRANTED. Defendant Pegues shall serve his overdue responses, without objection, to each of the sets of discovery referred to above by no later than August 27, 2010. At the time he serves his responses, Pegues shall file a notice with the Court indicating compliance with this Order. Copies of the proofs of service of the discovery responses shall accompany the filed notice.
Discovery Propounded Upon CDCR Defendants
1. Discovery Served After February 3, 2010
The discovery cutoff in this matter was March 5, 2010. The Court issued no less than three orders advising Plaintiff of this deadline. See Docs. 109, 124, 128. In its April 22, 2010 Order, the Court ruled:
Plaintiff's request to file discovery motions in relation to discovery served on August 24, 2009, January 7, 2010, January 31, 2010, February 4, 2010, and February 10, 2010 is granted in part and denied in part. In view of the Court's previously-established deadline of March 5, 2010 for the completion of all discovery (see Docs. 109, 124, 128), any discovery served after February 3, 2010 is untimely pursuant to the Court's previous scheduling orders, which required that "all discovery under Rules 30 through 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cutoff date, so that it may be completed by the cutoff date, taking into account the times for service, notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." See Docs. 109, 128. Therefore, the defendants need not respond to any discovery served by Plaintiff after February 3, 2010, and Plaintiff shall not file any discovery motions in relation to such discovery.
Apr. 22, 2010 Order [Doc. 135], ¶ 2. Therefore, in accordance with the Court's previous order, Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to the following discovery is DENIED as the discovery was untimely served: Requests for production of documents propounded upon Ochoa, Sandoval, Schommer, Zills, Wells, Mejia, Rodiles, Ortiz, Flores, Rangel, Martinez, Valenzuela (see Pl. Decl., Exs. K, L [served on February 4 and February 10, 2010]) and interrogatories propounded upon Castaneda, Sandoval, Schommer, Wells, Zills, Rodiles, Ortiz, and Mejia (see id., Ex. M [served on February 10, 2010]).*fn1
2. Other Discovery Served on the CDCR Defendants
Plaintiff appears to contend that the CDCR Defendants provided "incomplete, evasive and inadequate" responses to the following discovery: (1) Interrogatory nos. 7, 8, 13, 15, 19, 20, 23, and 25 served upon Jimenez; (2) Requests for admission nos. 9, 14, and 16 served upon Ochoa; (3) Request for admission no. 14 served upon Mejia; and (4) Document requests ...