Opinion
No. 13-cv-1532 KJM AC P
07-12-2015
FELIPE VALADEZ, SR., Plaintiff, v. D. GILL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses. ECF No. 56. Defendants have responded (ECF No. 57) and plaintiff has not filed a reply.
I. Procedural History
Pursuant to the order filed December 30, 2014, the discovery deadline in this case was re-set to February 27, 2015. ECF No. 52 at 4. On February 26, 2015, the Clerk of the Court filed plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadline by sixty days. ECF No. 54. The court denied the motion without prejudice to a motion in proper form. ECF No. 55. In denying the motion, the court explained that the scope of the requested extension was unclear and that plaintiff had failed to identify the reasons he required an extension. Id. Plaintiff did not file another motion to extend discovery.
The motion is dated January 23, 2015, but is not accompanied by a certificate of service. ECF No. 54.
On May 27, 2015, the Clerk of the Court filed plaintiff's motion to compel. ECF No. 56. In their response to the motion, defendants stated that the production requests at issue were not served on them until April 26, 2015, and that they objected to the requests as untimely on May 19, 2015. ECF No. 57 at 2.
The motion is dated May 2, 2015, but is not accompanied by a certificate of service. ECF No. 56. --------
II. Motion to Compel
Plaintiff appears to seek to compel responses to his second request for production. ECF No. 56. Though he does not specifically identify the requests at issue, based on the description contained in his motion, it appears he is seeking production in relation to requests 1, 2, and 5. Id. Plaintiff does not provide the defendants' responses or objections to the requests. Id. In their response to the motion, defendants argue that plaintiff's motion to compel should be denied because his requests for production were untimely. ECF No. 57. Plaintiff has not replied.
III. Discussion
The discovery deadline in this case, which was also the deadline for bringing motions to compel, was February 27, 2015. See ECF No. 28 at 5; ECF No. 52 at 4. Plaintiff's motion to enlarge that deadline was denied without prejudice to a motion in the proper form. ECF No. 55. Despite being advised what information needed to be contained in a proper motion to extend the discovery deadline, plaintiff did not file another motion for extension, leaving February 27, 2015, as the deadline for requesting discovery and filing motions to compel.
Even assuming plaintiff's motion to compel was delivered to prison staff, and thereby constructively filed, on May 2, 2015, the date on the motion, it would still be untimely. Moreover, according to defendants' response, the discovery requests at issue were also untimely because they were not served until April 26, 2015, approximately two months after discovery closed. ECF No. 57 at 2. Plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to file a proper motion to extend the discovery deadline and chose not to. Plaintiff's motion to compel and the underlying discovery requests are untimely and he has not provided any explanation for his delay in seeking discovery and moving to compel responses. The motion to compel will therefore be denied.
IV. Conclusion
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 56) is denied. DATED: July 12, 2015
/s/_________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE