Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas v. Swarthout

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 5, 2015

LLOYD M. THOMAS, Plaintiff,
v.
G. SWARTHOUT, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. On February 12, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion for additional discovery and revised the schedule in this action. ECF No. 55. In doing so, the court noted that, with regard to several of defendants' discovery responses, plaintiff had failed to indicate why the response defendants provided was inadequate. For that reason, the court declined to order defendants to provide additional responses to those particular discovery requests. Plaintiff has requested reconsideration of the court's order on those contested discovery responses and is now providing the reasons why he finds the initial responses inadequate. ECF No. 56. Those stated reasons provide clarity that was not fully stated in the original requests. Accordingly, the court will deny the request for reconsideration and directs plaintiff to re-serve the contested discovery requests on defendants within the new discovery deadlines provided in the February 11, 2015 order (March 30, 2015). If plaintiff believes that defendants' responses are again inadequate, plaintiff must file a motion to compel on or before April 30, 2015.

Plaintiff has also sent a letter to the clerk asking for clarification of the February 11th order. ECF No. 57. The February 11th order directed defendants to respond to those discovery requests by March 30, 2015. Plaintiff need not re-serve these requests nor file another motion to obtain responses. If, when he receives them, plaintiff believes that the responses are inadequate, he must file a motion to compel further responses by April 30, 2015, as directed in the February 11th order.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's February 25, 2015 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 56) is denied.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.