IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 23, 2012
ROBERT CHRISTOPHER JIMENEZ, PLAINTIFF,
J. WHITFIELD, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
On June 22, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant Whitfield to answer interrogatories and to produce documents. Defendant filed an opposition; plaintiff did not file a reply.
Plaintiff's motion to compel was signed on June 16, 2012. (Dkt. No. 64 at 4.) Plaintiff did not provide a separate copy of the discovery requests that included the date propounded or the certificate of service attesting to the date the discovery requests were served. Rather, plaintiff re-copied the discovery requests within his motion to compel. However, plaintiff provided a copy of the receipt for photocopies for the first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents which is dated May 3, 2012. (Dkt. No. 64 at 5-6.)
Defendant contends that plaintiff's motion is premature because he propounded the discovery requests on May 3, 2012, and that pursuant to the court's April 26, 2012 order, defendant's responses were not due until June 18, 2012. Defendant provided copies of plaintiff's discovery requests which are dated May 4, 2012, but served on May 3, 2012. (Dkt. No. 68-2.) Defendant also provided a copy of his discovery responses served on June 18, 2012. (Dkt. No. 68-3.)
Pursuant to this court's April 26, 2012 order, the parties are granted forty-five days in which to respond to discovery requests. Thus, plaintiff's motion to compel was prematurely-filed and is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's June 22, 2012 motion to compel discovery (dkt. no. 64) is denied without prejudice.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.