Opinion
3:10-cv-00085- ECR-WGC
10-20-2011
RALPH COUNTRYMAN, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD GARCIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel defendants to respond to discovery (Doc. #38) and a Motion for Hearing (Doc. #39) to which defendants objected. Defendant's Opposition (Doc. #41) is predicated on the proposition plaintiff's discovery should have been served more than 33 days prior to the discovery deadline to satisfy the deadline for completion of discovery. Generally speaking, defendants are correct. See, Bishop v. Potter, 2010 WL 2775332 (D. Nev. 2010).
However, as Judge Foley noted in the Bishop decision, "this requirement is not absolute." The Court further noted that because plaintiff therein served his interrogatories 31 and 32 days prior to the discovery deadline, "the Court can excuse the failure to comply with the deadline if it is not excessive." Id.
Herein, the deadline to complete discovery was August 22, 2011. Plaintiff's interrogatories and request for production were dated and served July 21, 2011. Although technically not within the discovery timetable, plaintiff's failure to comply with the deadline of one or two days "was not excessive." Id.
Therefore, plaintiff's "Motion to Compel Defendants to Answer Discovery" (Doc. #38) is GRANTED and his Motion for Hearing (Doc. #39) is DENIED as moot. Defendants shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to respond to plaintiff's discovery.
Plaintiff's letter to the Court is not to be filed and is returned to plaintiff with this order. A copy is to be provided defendants' counsel.
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE