IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 9, 2011
WILLIAM SOTO, PLAINTIFF,
DR. ZHOV, DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 20, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion to compel, as it could not determine from his motion what discovery he sought to compel. The order stated, "If defendant has failed to provide plaintiff with the supplemental interrogatory responses as ordered on April 19, 2010, plaintiff has fourteen days from the date of this order to file new a motion to compel so informing the court." Dckt. No. 59.
Plaintiff then filed another motion to compel, stating that defendant had not given him a copy of the interrogatories at issue, and asking that defendant be sanctioned. See Dckt. No. 60. Defendant opposed his motion, stating that he had mailed plaintiff a copy of the interrogatory responses on March 14, 2010, before the court ordered him to do so. Dckt. No. 61. Attached to defendant's motion is a copy of the interrogatory responses at issue. See Ex. A. Plaintiff's reply states that although he has been transferred between institutions (and therefore may not have received documents mailed to him), he has filed a change of address each time. Dckt. No. 62.
As defendant's interrogatory responses were attached to his pleading and filed on the docket, plaintiff has now indisputably received a copy. Therefore, his motion to compel is denied as moot. As it does not appear that defendant has engaged in sanctionable behavior, plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied as well.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to compel, Dckt. No. 60, is denied;
2. Plaintiff shall file and serve his final pretrial statement and any motions necessary to obtain the attendance of witnesses at trial within thirty days; and
3. Defendant shall file his final pretrial statement not later than thirty days after the filing of plaintiff's statement.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.