United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE, GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS, AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION [ECF Nos. 34, 37, 40, 41]
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Anthony Johnson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadline, filed February 9, 2015, and Plaintiff's motion to hold Defendants in contempt of court for failure to comply with a court order, filed March 4, 2015. (ECF Nos. 34, 37.) Defendants filed a response on March 24, 2015, and a motion to extend the time to file a dispositive motion on March 26, 2015. (ECF Nos. 40, 41.)
This action is proceeding against Defendants Clark, Macias, Nareddy and Sisodia on Plaintiff's claim of inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on May 15, 2014. On May 16, 2014, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order, setting the discovery deadline as January 16, 2015, and the dispositive motion deadline as March 26, 2015.
Plaintiff thereafter served discovery requests on Defendants, which defense counsel did not receive until June 10, 2014, during a time when counsel was out of the office due to a family illness. On October 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his pending discovery requests. (ECF No. 28.)
On December 22, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, and directed Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff's pending discovery request by January 16, 2015. (ECF No. 32.)
In response to the December 22, 2014, court order, counsel for Defendants declares that she drafted responses to the discovery requests and spoke with Defendants in an effort to expedite service of those responses. Counsel completed the responses and sent them to Defendants for signature.
On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the time for discovery. Upon notice of Plaintiff's filing, defense counsel realized that the discovery responses had not been served on Plaintiff and could not be located on the computer system. Counsel then began working on redrafting the responses. Counsel submits that she "has been working on the draft responses for the second time, but they are not yet complete." (ECF No. 40, 2:22-23.) Consequently, Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadline.
A. Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline
Plaintiff seeks an extension of the discovery deadline based on Defendants failure to respond to his discovery requests as ordered by the Court on December 22, 2014.
On the basis of good cause, the Court will grant Plaintiff's request and extend the discovery deadline to and including July 1, 2015, ...