Henderson v. Rodriguez

Full title: CURTIS LEE HENDERSON SR., Plaintiff, v. G. RODRIGUEZ, Defendant

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

Date published: Jan 21, 2011

1:08-CV-00188-LJO-DLB-(PC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011)

Opinion

1:08-CV-00188-LJO-DLB-(PC).

January 21, 2011

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S FIRST MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SUPPLEMENT DISCOVERY RESPONSE NUNC PRO TUNC (DOC. 58) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. 60)

DENNIS BECK, Magistrate Judge

On November 16, 2010, Defendant filed a motion for a thirty day extension of time to supplement his discovery response. On December 17, 2010, Defendant served his response. Jeffrey Steele Decl., Doc. 62-1. Good cause appearing, and because Defendant served his response by December 17, 2010, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion for extension of time to supplement a discovery response is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.

On December 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against Defendant for failure to timely serve his discovery responses. As the Court is granting Defendant's motion for extension of time to serve his discovery response, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2011