IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 17, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
JAMES O. MOLEN ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Defendant James Molen ("defendant") is proceeding without counsel in this action.*fn1 On December 26, 2012, defendant filed a document styled as a "Notice of Stipulation Request For Meet And Confer Plan For Discovery." (Dkt. No. 125.) On January 9, 2013, defendant filed a document styled as a "Joint Disagreement Notice Of Meet And Confer Plan For Discovery." (Dkt. No. 126.)
While the purpose of these filings is unclear, the documents appear to raise issues pertaining to discovery in this case. To the extent the filings were intended as motions to compel discovery, however, they are denied.
First, the filings fail to comply with the rules governing discovery motions.
Previously, defendant has completed several filings styled as "Motions to Compel" (e.g., Dkt. Nos. 48-49), which were denied without prejudice to refiling based upon defendant's non-compliance with the rules governing discovery motions. (Orders, Dkt. Nos. 65, 124 (informing defendant that future failures to comply with such rules would result in motions being summarily denied).) These most recent filings suffer from the same deficiencies described in the undersigned's prior orders, and are therefore summarily denied.
Second, and more crucially, discovery motions are no longer permissible in this action given that the deadlines for conducting discovery and for filing discovery motions have passed. (See Orders, Dkt. Nos. 76, 122 ("All discovery shall be completed by October 4, 2012").) The discovery period in this case is closed. To the extent defendant's filings were intended as motions to compel discovery, then, such motions are untimely.*fn2
Accordingly, the undersigned construes defendant's filings at Docket Numbers 125 and 126 as motions to compel discovery and denies the motions. As defendant has been informed numerous times in this case, even though he is proceeding without counsel he is obligated to familiarize himself with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Eastern District of California Local Rules. Pro se litigants are afforded a degree of leniency with respect to their pleadings, but they are nonetheless required to comply with the rules of litigation procedure. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). As he has been advised previously (e.g., Orders, Dkt. Nos. 65, 124), defendant's failures to comply with the rules of litigation procedure may subject him to sanctions, and improperly-filed motions may be summarily denied.*fn3
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT defendant's filings at Docket Numbers 125 and 126 are construed as motions to compel discovery and are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.