Opinion
2:19-cv-2210 JAM AC P
12-22-2021
DAVID HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. M. SON, Defendant.
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed a motion to compel discovery, ECF No. 26, which defendant opposes, ECF No. 29.
On November 7, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to compel the production of confidential records related to health care staff complaints made against defendant Son. ECF No. 26. Defendant opposes the motion on the grounds that plaintiff failed to attach a copy of the discovery requests at issue and that the motion is premature because the only request for production he received was served on October 21, 2021. ECF No. 29. In reply, plaintiff attaches a copy of a request for admissions dated October 4, 2021; he argues that his motion was not premature because it was filed before the November 8, 2021 deadline for serving discovery. ECF No. 31.
This date reflects the application of the prison mailbox rule. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing rule that a prisoner's court document is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivered the document to prison officials for mailing).
By order filed September 3, 2021, the undersigned set a schedule for discovery in this case that provided that discovery closed on January 7, 2022, and that “[a]ll requests for discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 31 (deposition by written question), 33 (interrogatories), 34 (production of documents), or 36 (admissions) shall be served no later than November 8, 2021.” ECF No. 24 at 5 (emphasis in original). The order further provided that responses to written discovery requests were due forty-five days after service of the request. Id. In other words, written requests for discovery had to be sent by November 8, 2021, and the party to whom they were sent had forty-five days to respond. Plaintiff appears to have misunderstood the order to mean that responses to discovery were due by November 8, 2021, regardless of when they were served. Because plaintiff did not serve his request for production until October 21, 2021, defendant's response was not due until December 9, 2021. Plaintiff's motion to compel was therefore premature and will be denied.
Since the forty-fifth day fell on a Sunday, the deadline was continued to Monday, December 6, 2021. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1)(C) (when deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, it is continued to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday). Defendant was then entitled to an additional three days because the deadline was based on the date of service. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) (when service is made by mail, “3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a)”).
To the extent plaintiff's reply was attempting to expand the motion to include responses to his request for admissions, the motion will also be denied. If plaintiff wishes to file a motion to compel related to the substance of defendant's responses, he may do so. The current deadline for motions to compel is January 7, 2022, and any such motion must include a copy of and specifically identify the requests and responses at issue and explain why the responses are deficient or the objections improper.
Plaintiff's reply to the motion to compel was also accompanied by a request for copies. ECF No. 30. It is not the practice of this court to provide copies without payment of the appropriate fees, regardless of whether a party is proceeding in forma pauperis. If plaintiff would like copies of any documents, the Clerk's Office provides copies of documents at $0.50 per page, and any requests for copies must be accompanied by the appropriate fees. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs motion to compel, ECF No. 26, is DENIED.
2. Plaintiffs motion for copies, ECF No. 30, is DENIED.