ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Procedural History
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se who seeks relief pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This action was removed by defendants from state court and is proceeding on the Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 9
On December 11, 2012, the court issued an order to show cause and ordered that all pending deadlines were held in abeyance pending resolution of plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadline based on the removal of his case file by prison authorities. ECF No. 23. By Order of July 19, 2013, this Court found no basis "for extending or re-opening discovery in this case, " but due to the circumstances presented, granted plaintiff leave to serve one set of requests for admissions on defendant. ECF No. 33 at 4.
On August 5, 2013, after the discovery deadline had passed, plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his first request for production of documents propounded in the summer of 2012. Specifically, plaintiff seeks the specific policies, procedures and practices at High Desert State Prison and a copy of his medical records from July 2008. See ECF No. 34. Defendant filed an untimely opposition to this motion, together with a motion for leave to oppose out of time. ECF Nos. 35, 36.
II. Timeliness of Motion to Compel
While the court does not look favorably on the filing of a motion to compel discovery more than a year after plaintiff received defendant's response to his request for production of documents, the court also notes the delay that has been caused by defense counsel's failure to timely comply with court orders and deadlines in this case. See ECF Nos. 27 (noting failure to respond to order to show cause); 44 (granting an extension of time of the dispositive motions deadline); 42 (same); 38 (same). In light of the litigation delays attributable to both parties, the court will exercise its discretion and entertain plaintiff's untimely motion to compel as well as defendant's untimely opposition thereto.
The parties are further advised and cautioned that requests for extensions of time are the exception and not the norm. Multiple motions for extensions of time burden this court's already over-burdened docket and should not be filed in a piecemeal manner. See Local Rule 144(d).
III. Motion to Compel Further Response to Requests for Production of Documents
Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to his requests for production (RFP) nos. 1-6 and 9 directed to the CDCR, in order to obtain the policies, practices, and procedures specific to High Desert State Prison as well as his prison medical records from July 2008. ECF No. 34 at 2-4. Plaintiff indicates that he signed a release form requesting a copy of his prison medical records on December 31, 2012, but was later informed that he did not have adequate funds on his prison trust account to pay the costs associated with copying them. ECF No. 34 at 13 (declaration of Paul Dean Roberts). As a result, plaintiff requests that a copy be provided free of charge by defendant. Id.
In opposition, defendant CDCR noted that documents responsive to plaintiff's RFP nos. 1-6 had just been located concerning the specific polices of the Central Treatment Center at High Desert State Prison where plaintiff was housed in July 2008. See ECF Nos. 36, 36-3 at 7-19. Therefore, defendant has supplemented their initial response to requests for production nos. 1-6. ECF No. 36-3 at 7-19. Defendant continues to object to request for production no. 9 related to plaintiff's prison medical records from July 2008 arguing that they are equally available for plaintiff's inspection and copying at his current prison. ECF Nos. 36 at 4, 36-1 at 5-6.
III. Legal Standard
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense, and for good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.
Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. See e.g., Grabek v. Dickinson , 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan.13, 2012); Womack v. Virga , 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011). This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant ...