Henderson v. California Highway Patrol

Full title: BILLY HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Dec 23, 2013

2:12-cv-0532 JAM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2013)

Opinion

BILLY HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., Defendants. No. 2:12-cv-0532 JAM CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. December 23, 2013

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The remaining defendants are defendant York, an employee of the Glenn Medical Center; and defendants Gardner and Lazo, employees of the California Highway Patrol.

         On October 15, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to compel further answers to requests for discovery. Plaintiff did not include copies of the requests at issue with his motion. After reviewing the briefs submitted by the parties, it appears the motion to compel concerns requests for production of documents directed to the California Highway Patrol and the Glenn Medical Center. As neither entity is a party in this action, they are not required to respond to requests for production of documents. See Fed R. Civ. P. 34(a). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel will be denied.

         In his October 31, 2013 reply regarding his motion to compel, plaintiff acknowledges his requests for production were not directed to defendants and suggests that was because of a lack of understanding of the discovery rules. He asks for an extension of time to file proper requests. Good cause appearing, that request will be granted. Plaintiff will be granted twenty-one days within which to serve requests for production of documents on defendants Gardner, Lazo and/or York.

         On December 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion requesting an order from the court directing that plaintiff be provided with certain video and audio recordings which may be relevant to the incidents at issue in this case. This is not an appropriate request as the court does not, generally speaking, simply order individuals or entities to provide parties with information. If plaintiff seeks information from individuals or entities which are not parties to this action, he should serve subpoenas pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

         In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Plaintiff's October 15, 2013 motion to compel (ECF No. 45) is denied.

         2. Plaintiff's December 6, 2013 "Notice of Motion and Motion Requesting Order of Recordings" (ECF No. 49) is denied.

         3. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to serve requests for production of documents on defendants Gardner, Lazo and/or York is granted. Plaintiff may serve requests for production of documents upon those defendants no later than twenty-one days from this order. Responses shall be served upon plaintiff no later than twenty-one days from the date of service of the requests for production. Any motion to compel must be filed no later than February 17, 2014.

         4. The deadline for filing pretrial motions established in the court's June 26, 2013 discovery and scheduling order is extended to May 9, 2014.