Opinion
CASE NO. C09-1296-JCC-MAT.
March 30, 2010
There are three pro se plaintiffs in this matter: Joseph McDaniels, Charles Momah, and Robert Leake. Mr. Momah moves to extend the discovery deadline. (Dkt. 36.) Mr. McDaniels moves to compel discovery. (Dkt. 34.) The Court also notes that Mr. McDaniels, a non-attorney, has filed a pending motion for summary judgment in which he purports to represent all of the pro se plaintiffs. (Dkt. 40, at 1, 7.) For the reasons stated below, the Court ORDERS: (1) Mr. Momah's motion to extend the discovery deadline (Dkt. 36) is GRANTED in part; (2) defendant David Sherman is directed to respond to all discovery requests he received prior to March 11, 2010; (3) Mr. McDaniels' motion to compel (Dkt. 34) is DENIED as moot; (4) the dispositive-motions deadline is extended to May 28, 2010; (5) Mr. McDaniels is cautioned again that as a pro se plaintiff he may not represent other parties in this action; and (6) the Clerk is directed to modify the docket entry for Mr. McDaniels' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 40) to note that it has been filed on Mr. McDaniels' behalf alone.
(1) Defense counsel is correct that Mr. Momah requested discovery approximately a day after he should have, and never sought, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(2)(b), to meet and confer with defendant prior to bringing his motion. The Court notes, however, that this is Mr. Momah's first motion for an extension of the discovery deadline, and the record indicates that he may be under the mistaken impression that Mr. Mr. McDaniels has the legal authority to file papers on his behalf. The Court therefore exercises its discretion to grant in part Mr. Momah's motion to extend discovery. The Court will entertain no further motions to extend the discovery deadline.
(2) The Court does not, however, permit a blanket extension of the discovery deadline. Defendant is directed to respond to all discovery requests that were received prior to March 11, 2010. Defendant need not respond to any discovery requests received after March 11, 2010.
(3) Because defendant has been directed to respond to all discovery requests received prior to March 11, 2010, Mr. McDaniels' motion to compel is denied as moot.
(4) The Court extends the dispositive-motions deadline to May 28, 2010, to that defendant may respond to plaintiffs' discovery requests and plaintiff may review defendant's responses.
(5) The first sentence of Mr. McDaniels's motion for summary judgment states that "Plaintiffs McDANIELS, MOMAH, and LEAKE move [] for summary judgment." (Dkt. 40, at 1.) The motion is signed by Mr. McDaniels alone. (Id. at 7.) Mr. McDaniels has already been warned that he, as a non-attorney proceeding pro se, has no authority to appear as an attorney for other parties. (Dkt. 27, at 2); Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court hereby cautions Mr. McDaniels that if he files any other papers in which he purports to represent the other plaintiffs the Court will consider sanctions or a contempt order.
(6) The Clerk is directed to modify the docket entry for Mr. McDaniels' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 40) to note that it has been filed on Mr. McDaniels' behalf alone. If Mr. Momah and Mr. Leake seek to join Mr. McDaniels' motion for summary judgment, they must file signed papers to that effect by the dispositive motions deadline.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiffs and to the Honorable John C. Coughenour.