Opinion
No. CIV S-05-0830 LKK GGH P.
March 28, 2007
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Order filed on January 30, 2007, the court, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for a continuance, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), of defendants' motion for summary judgment and directed defendants Fisher and Welch to produce to plaintiff, within 30 days, "only the specific pages of the decision portion of parole consideration hearing transcripts solely from subsequent parole consideration hearings for convicted male first degree murderers serving sentences of 25 years to life, for the entire year of 2006, but only that year."See Order, filed on 1/30/07, pp. 6-7. Defendants subsequently sought reconsideration of the order and a stay of discovery before the district judge. The order of the undersigned was affirmed and the motion to stay discovery was denied on March 7, 2007. See Order, filed on 3/07/07.
Defendants have now filed a motion, couched as a motion for a protective order, and a motion for extension of time to produce the documents without which any such production would by now be untimely. In the putative motion for a protective order, defendants state some 1,613 subsequent parole consideration hearings for first degree murderers serving 25-year to life sentences were conducted in 2006. Defendants seek to limit the number of transcripts to a representative sample from two or three months in 2006, randomly selected, or to otherwise reduce the "number of transcripts to a less burdensome number." Motion, p. 2. Defendants have also filed an ex parte motion for an order shortening time, filed March 28, 2007, seeking to have the court address the motion for a protective order on an expedited basis, which ex parte motion is disregarded as moot.
The court grants defendants a 45-day extension of time from the date of this order for production; however, plaintiff must be afforded an opportunity to respond to the motion which seeks to reduce the production previously ordered before considering limitations proposed by defendants. Plaintiff must file a response to the motion within fifteen (15) days. In the alternative, within the same fifteen-day period, defendants may make arrangements with the prison for plaintiff to take part in a telephone conference call with the court which includes plaintiff pro se and defense counsel. Defendants' counsel must also coordinate the scheduling of any such conference call with the appropriate court staff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.