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.

Thomas J. Heilman v. T. Lyons

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


April 20, 2011

THOMAS J. HEILMAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
T. LYONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 30, 2011, counsel for defendants was ordered to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed for counsel's failure to comply with a court order. (Dkt. No. 35.) On April 5, 2011, counsel for defendants filed a response, indicating that in addition to his inadvertent failure to provide discovery responses for all defendants, he had suffered an unexpected medical emergency requiring surgery, which resulted in his absence from the office for almost three weeks. Accordingly, the court will not impose monetary sanctions at this time.

On March 30, 2011, plaintiff was ordered to provide an itemized list of expenses incurred in connection with his motion to compel. Plaintiff has now filed a reply stating that plaintiff did not incur any expenses in connection with the motion. In his reply, signed April 7, 2011, plaintiff contends that defendants are "engaging in deliberate acts to deprive plaintiff of discovery," and notes "non-party CDCR's refusal to provide subpoenaed discovery." (Dkt. No. 37 at 1-2.) However, the March 30, 2011 order required discovery responses to be provided on or about April 12, 2011, and the subpoena duces tecum, issued March 23, 2011, provided for production of the documents on April 15, 2011. In the April 5, 2011 response to the order to show cause, counsel for defendants stated that a response to the subpoena was being issued concurrently with his response to the order to show cause, and that defendants would respond to the outstanding discovery responses no later than April 12, 2011. Because these deadlines fall after plaintiff's reply signed on April 7, 2011, no further court action is required at this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The March 30, 2011 order to show cause (dkt. no. 35) is discharged; and

2. No expenses are awarded in connection with the February 24, 2011 motion to compel.

20110420

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



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.