IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 14, 2012
RENE MEDINA, PLAINTIFF,
KATHLEEN DICKINSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
By Order filed on November 1, 2011, pursuant to plaintiff's motion, discovery was "re-opened for the limited purpose of permitting plaintiff to serve his prepared discovery requests upon defendants within fourteen days of the filed date of [that] order." The discovery deadline was extended to December 28, 2011, and the pretrial dispositive motion was extended to April 11, 2012. Thereafter, on December 15, 2011, plaintiff filed a "motion for an order compelling discovery," averring that he had served his first set of interrogatories and his first set of requests for production of documents, upon defendants Clark, Hurtado, Gonzalez and Swarthout on November 15, 2011, but had yet to receive answers or any documents. Plaintiff stated that he had also filed a copy of his discovery requests in court on the same date. See Motion. Although it would not have been necessary to have filed his discovery requests at the time he avers that he served them upon defendants, the undersigned notes that nothing in the case docket indicates that plaintiff's discovery requests were filed.
On February 13, 2012, plaintiff filed a letter directed to defendants' counsel, referencing discovery documents that he states were filed on November 15, 2012, and indicating that to date, he still had received no discovery responses. No response to plaintiff's motion or his letter has been filed by defendants.
It is unclear to this court whether plaintiff properly served his discovery requests upon defendants because, although he believes they have been filed in this court, they have not been. Again, to do so would have been unnecessary on November 15, 2011. However, now it has become an issue as to whether they were served upon defendants. Defendants must forthwith inform the court whether they received the discovery requests and, if so, whether they have responded to the requests and, if not, why they have not. If they did not receive the requests, defendants should nevertheless have responded to plaintiff's motion to so inform both the court and plaintiff.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendants file a response to plaintiff's motion, filed on December 15, 2011 (docket # 47), by no later than March 19, 2012. There will be no extension of time.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.