Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reno Fuentes Rios v. J.E. Tilton

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 15, 2010

RENO FUENTES RIOS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
J.E. TILTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Presently pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to comply with the order of this court filed September 24, 2010, which provided, in pertinent part:

Within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this order, defendants shall personally serve plaintiff with a supplemental response to plaintiff's Request No. 1, Requests for Production (Set One), which may be set forth in a CDC Form 1030 or similar format, and includes all information contained in plaintiff's central file that was initially relied upon to validate plaintiff as a gang affiliate, and has been thereafter relied upon to maintain such validation, properly redacted as set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Sections 3321 and 3378.

(Dkt. No. 81, at 18.) Although plaintiff has attached copies of documents produced by defendants, the court is unable to ascertain the merits of plaintiff's motion without a statement from defendants.

Defendants have not filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion, and the time for doing so has expired. See Local Rule 230(l) ("Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions."). Application of this rule is unhelpful in resolving the merits of the instant discovery motion because plaintiff challenges the production of documents within defendants' control. Given the importance of the subject discovery, defendants will be required to respond to plaintiff's motion, and to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against defendants based on their failure to file a timely response to plaintiff's motion.

Meanwhile, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment within the deadline set by this court, for which plaintiff seeks an extension of time within which to file his opposition. Plaintiff need not file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment until so ordered by this court.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants shall, within twenty-one (21) days after the filing date of this order, show cause why they should not be sanctioned for failure to file an opposition to plaintiff's motion filed November 15, 2010 (Dkt. No. 82), and shall file such opposition or statement of nonopposition;

2. Plaintiff may, within fourteen (14) days after service of defendants' opposition, file a reply; and

3. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 85) is granted; the deadline for filing an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment is suspended until further order of this court.*fn1

rios0790.misc


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.