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.

Durrell Anthony Puckett v. D. Bailey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 1, 2011

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
D. BAILEY, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AS PREMATURE Doc. 29

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES Doc. 32 DEADLINE JANUARY 26, 2012 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Doc. 32

DEADLINE MARCH 23, 2012

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 7, 2011, the Court issued a scheduling order, establishing a discovery deadline of May 7, 2012 and a dispositive motion deadline of July 16, 2012. Doc. 21. On October 25, 2011, the Court granted Defendants' first motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories. Doc. 27. On November 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, and on November 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Docs. 28 & 29. On November 22, 2011, Defendants filed a response to the motion to compel, a second motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories, and a first motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Docs. 31 & 32.

The Court originally gave Defendants until December 12, 2011 to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories. Plaintiff also seeks to compel documents, but Plaintiff does not state that he first served Defendants with a request for production of documents. Doc. 29. Plaintiff must first serve Defendants with a request for production of documents, and if Defendants fail to make a disclosure required by Rule 26, then Plaintiff may seek a motion to compel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and (a)(3)(A). Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to compel is premature. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED as premature;

2. Defendants' second motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories is GRANTED;

3. Defendants' response to Plaintiff's interrogatories is due by January 26, 2012; 4. Defendants' first motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for summary is GRANTED; and

5. Defendants' response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is due by March 23, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20111201

© 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.