The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel filed June 18, 2012 (Dkt. No. 51), and defendants' motion to conduct plaintiff's deposition via videoconference filed July 30, 2012 (Dkt. No. 53). For the following reasons, plaintiff's motion is denied and defendants' motion is granted.
Plaintiff argues that defendants' failed to respond to interrogatories, requests for admissions and a request for production of documents. In the opposition, defendants state that on May 9, 2012, the court issued a scheduling order granting the parties forty-five days to respond to discovery requests. Defendants state that plaintiff served the at-issue discovery requests on May 6, 2012. Attached as exhibits to defendants' opposition are plaintiff's proofs of service for the at-issue discovery requests indicating that they were served on May 6, 2012. (Dkt. No. 52-2 at 9, 13, 20.) In the opposition, defendants state that they served plaintiff with their responses to these discovery requests on June 25, 2012. (Dkt. No. 52-3 at 15, 22, 29.)
Defendants had forty-eight days, i.e., forty-five days plus three days for service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), to serve plaintiff with their discovery responses. Forty-eight days from May 6, 2012 is Saturday June 23, 2012. Because the forty-eighth day fell on a Saturday, defendants' responses were due the following Monday, i.e., June 25, 2012. See Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. 6(a)(1)(C). Because defendants served plaintiff with timely responses to the discovery requests, plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.
Motion to Conduct Deposition Via Videoconference
Defendants request that they be permitted to conduct plaintiff's deposition via videoconference. Plaintiff is incarcerated at High Desert State Prison ("HDSP"). Defendants state that conducting plaintiff's deposition via videoconference would minimize defendants' travel related expenses. Good cause appearing, defendants' motion is granted.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to compel (Dkt. No. 51) is denied;
2. Defendants' motion to conduct plaintiff's deposition via videoconference (Dkt. No. 53) is granted.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...