UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 27, 2011
CHRIS JORDAN, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND MOTION TO COMPEL
(ECF Nos. 31, 32)
Plaintiff Larry Zuniga ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Discovery in this action opened on April 29, 2010. Plaintiff was granted two extensions of time to conduct discovery. On April 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum, and on May 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further discovery. (ECF Nos. 31, 32.)
I. Motion to Compel
Plaintiff states that Defendants have failed to produce exculpatory evidence.*fn1 Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff's motion is procedurally deficient as he failed to include a copy of Plaintiff's discovery requests that are at issue, a copy of Defendant's responses to the discovery request, and an explanation of why Defendants objections are not justified.
Pursuant to the amended discovery and scheduling order, issued March 7, 2011, the deadline for conducting discovery in this action was extended to April 29, 2011. In that order Plaintiff was advised that no further extensions of time would be granted to conduct discovery. Plaintiff was advised in the discovery and scheduling order, issued April 29, 2010, that all discovery must be completed and all motions to compel must be filed by the discovery cutoff date. Plaintiff did not file his motion to compel discovery until May 11, 2011, therefore, his motion to compel further discovery shall be denied as untimely.
II. Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum
As previously discussed, Plaintiff was informed that all discovery must be completed by the discovery cutoff date. Plaintiff did not file his motion for a subpoena duces tecum with enough time to allow for objections by the opposing party, the subpoenas to be served by the United States Marshal, and documents to be received by Plaintiff prior to the cutoff date of April 29, 2011. Plaintiff's motion for a subpoena duces tecum was untimely and shall be denied.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a subpoena duces tecum, filed April 5, 2011, and Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed May 11, 2011, are DENIED as UNTIMELY.
IT IS SO ORDERED.