United States District Court, E.D. California
DAVID G. LEONARD, Plaintiff,
JIM DENNY, et al., Defendants.
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a former county and current state prisoner proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis in this action. The parties are
currently engaged in attempting to resolve plaintiff's
September 29, 2016, plaintiff filed his first motion to
compel. ECF No. 99. He filed a second motion to compel
shortly thereafter (ECF No. 104), and in response defendants
requested that they be given the opportunity to meet and
confer with plaintiff regarding his discovery disputes (ECF
No. 106). Defendants' request for additional time to
telephonically meet and confer with plaintiff was granted and
the second motion to compel, which plaintiff had indicated
was incomplete,  was vacated with leave to re-file as
needed once the parties concluded their discussions. ECF No.
107. The first motion to compel, which was complete, was left
pending and plaintiff was directed to advise the court
whether the issues in that motion were also resolved during
the parties' discussions. Id. The deadline for
filing any further motions to compel was extended to
forty-five days after the parties had their telephonic
conference. Id. Due to the delays inherent in
plaintiff having to use the postal system to send and receive
court filings, plaintiff filed four more motions to
compel before he received the order directing him
to telephonically confer with defendants counsel. ECF Nos.
108, 109, 111, 117. Those motions were also vacated with
leave to refile as necessary after the parties had spoken.
ECF Nos. 116, 118.
time limitations placed on inmate phone calls, which
defendants were initially told would not be a problem,
defendants requested additional time to conduct further
telephonic conferences in an attempt to resolve
plaintiff's discovery issues without court intervention.
ECF No. 119. This request was granted and the parties were
given an additional sixty days to complete their discussions.
ECF No. 120. At the conclusion of their time to discuss the
disputes, defendants notified the court of the last day the
parties conducted a conference and advised that they believed
all matters had been addressed. ECF No. 122. However,
plaintiff filed a response in which he stated that there were
still outstanding matters and requesting additional time to
try and resolve them, as he felt the discussions up to that
point had been productive. ECF No. 123. Plaintiff then filed
two notices advising that he was being sent out to surgery,
anticipated being unavailable for approximately sixty days,
and would notify the court once he was returned to the
prison. ECF Nos. 124, 125. Defendants were then directed to
advise the court regarding the current status of discovery
and whether they felt further efforts to meet and confer
would be beneficial. ECF No. 126. Defendants advised that
they expected supplemental responses based on their previous
discussions would be served by May 30, 2017, and that they
did not object to additional discussions with plaintiff. ECF
No. 127. They requested sixty days to meet and confer, to
start after plaintiff notified the court that he was back at
the prison. Id.
parties will be granted sixty days from the filing of this
order to finish meeting and conferring. Although plaintiff
has not yet notified the court of his return to the prison,
it has now been approximately sixty days since plaintiff
advised that he would be sent out for surgery. Furthermore,
based upon defendants' representations, plaintiff has
likely received their supplemental responses at this point.
The court will also vacate plaintiffs original motion to
compel (ECF No. 99) since it appears that the parties'
discussions have included the issues identified therein and
many of those issues may no longer need to be addressed by
the court (ECF Nos. 122, 123). Plaintiff will be given leave
to file a renewed motion to compel containing any issues that
are still outstanding. The parties are further advised that
while the court appreciates their cooperation and efforts to
resolve these issues without the court's intervention,
discovery cannot continue indefinitely and further extensions
of the time to meet and confer will likely not be granted
unless the time requested is brief.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request for additional time to meet and
confer with defendants on discovery matters (ECF No. 124) is
2. Plaintiff's motion to compel filed September 29, 2016
(ECF No. 99) is vacated.
3. The parties shall have sixty days from the filing of this
order to complete the meet and confer process regarding
4. Within seven days of the parties' final telephonic
meeting, defendants shall notify the court of the date of
that meeting and that discussions regarding discovery
disputes have concluded.
5. Plaintiff shall have forty-five days from the date of the
final telephonic conference to file a motion to compel
addressing any discovery issues that are still outstanding.