Opinion
2:23-cv-00191-DAD-EFB (PC)
05-23-2024
JOEL VALERA, Plaintiff, v. B. VASQUEZ, Defendant.
ORDER
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion for an order compelling defendant Vasquez to provide certain categories of evidence. ECF No. 28. He has also filed a motion for 90 additional days to reply to “any current procedure in this case that requires a response.” ECF No. 29. For the reasons that follow, the motions are denied.
The Motion to Compel. Plaintiff asks the court to compel defendant to provide plaintiff with evidence spanning the past five years concerning certain misconduct claims against defendant and investigations by CDCR into such claims. However, plaintiff does not identify any discovery request issued to defendant seeking this information or argue that he served these requests on defendant and defendant failed to properly respond. In contrast, defendant's opposition brief and the declaration of counsel attached thereto, indicates that plaintiff has never served these requests on defendant; rather, he served similar requests and never filed a motion challenging defendant's responses. ECF No. 30. Plaintiff has filed no reply brief to rebut this claim. Accordingly, there is no basis for the court to compel defendant to provide the information sought by plaintiff. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B) & (a)(4).
Further, as argued by defendant, the deadline for filing a motion to compel passed on September 22, 2023, and plaintiff provides no reason why he should be excused from this deadline. ECF No. 14.
The court makes no ruling on defendant's additional arguments that the production sought by plaintiff should not compelled because it is privileged, confidential, and inadmissible. Henderson v. Lizzaraga, No. 2:18-CV-2181-JAM-DMC-P, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218010, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020) (“[C]ourts have found that prior complaints of misconduct made against a defendant are discoverable when sufficiently similar to the claims brought in the instant suit.”)
Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time does not identify what he needs extra time for. To the extent that plaintiff seeks an extension of time to oppose the pending motion for summary judgment, the request has been mooted by the filing of plaintiff's opposition and defendant's reply (which does not argue that the opposition is untimely).
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's March 18, 2024 motion to compel (ECF No. 28) is DENIED; and
2. Plaintiff's March 18, 2024 motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 29) is DENIED.