IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 16, 2010
JAMES W. WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
MED. AUTHORIZATION REVIEW COMM., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is defendants' motion to compel responses to their requests for production of documents served upon plaintiff.
In their motion, defendants Abdur-Rahman, David and Rein assert that on June 15, 2009, they served plaintiff with their requests for the production of documents by mail at plaintiff's address of record which was Kern Valley State Prison. (Mot. at 4.) Defendants sought production of: (1) plaintiff's medical records relating to the injuries alleged in his complaint or an authorization signed by plaintiff for the release of his medical treatment records; (2) documents showing plaintiff's exhaustion of administrative remedies; and (3) other documents that plaintiff contended would support his claim that his civil or constitutional rights were violated. (Id., Ex. A, B. & C.) Pursuant to the court's discovery order, filed on March 27, 2009, plaintiff had until August 3, 2009 to respond to defendants' discovery requests. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff failed to do so. On October 26, 2009, defendants filed this motion to compel. Plaintiff has never filed an opposition to the motion and his notice of a change of address was filed three months after his release.*fn1
In light of the confusion and delay created by plaintiff's release from confinement and his delay in filing a notice of change of address, the court finds that there is good cause for defendants' failure to timely move to compel production, and the motion to compel will be granted in part.*fn2 The court will order plaintiff to produce the requested documents, or explain in writing that he does not have possession of the requested documents and/or provide a signed authorization for release of his medical records pertaining to the medical treatment at issue in this action. The court will also modify the May 27, 2009 scheduling order, and extend the deadline for the filing of any pretrial motions, including a defense motion for summary judgment.*fn3
Plaintiff is cautioned that should he fail to comply with the court's orders and deadlines, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' October 26, 2009 motion to compel (Doc. No. 34) is granted in part;
2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff shall produce to defendants the documents requested in their requests for production of documents or explain in writing that he does not have possession of the requested documents and/or provide a signed authorization for release of his medical records pertaining to this action;
3. The court's May 27, 2009 scheduling order is modified as follows: The deadline for filing any pretrial motions, including any motion for summary judgment, is extended to November 30, 2010. Plaintiff's opposition or notice of non-opposition to any such motion filed by the defendants shall be filed according to Local Rule 230(l)*fn4 ; and
4. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action.