From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thornberry v. Baughman

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 24, 2021
2:19-cv-00639-MCE-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2021)

Opinion

2:19-cv-00639-MCE-JDP (PC)

08-24-2021

DANIEL LEE THORNBERRY, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BAUGHMAN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER: DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL ECF Nos. 30 & 31 & GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ECF No. 40

JEREMY D. PETERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants Baughman, Peterson, and Percy violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for filing grievances. He has filed two motions to compel, ECF Nos. 30 & 31, that argue that defendants have inadequately responded to certain interrogatories and requests for production. Defendants have opposed both motions, and plaintiff has filed a reply. ECF Nos. 33 & 37. Plaintiff's motions are inadequate, however, because they do not include copies of the relevant interrogatories and requests for production. Without the text of each contested discovery item, I cannot evaluate the adequacy of defendants' responses and objections.

Defendants' opposition describes the content of the relevant discovery items, but it does not include a verbatim copy of the interrogatories and requests for production.

Accordingly, I will deny plaintiffs motions to compel without prejudice. He may re-file a motion to compel, include a copy of defendants' responses, and explain why each response is deficient. I will extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines to accommodate a renewed motion to compel. If plaintiff files a renewed motion to compel, defendants may file either an amended response or a notice that they intend to stand by their current opposition.

It is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs motions to compel, ECF Nos. 30 & 31, are denied without prejudice.

2. The discovery deadline is extended to September 17, 2021. Any motion to compel must be filed by that date. The dispositive motions deadline is extended to November 15, 2021.

3. Plaintiff s motion for extension of time to respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 40, is granted. His response is due ninety days from the date of this order's entry.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Thornberry v. Baughman

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 24, 2021
2:19-cv-00639-MCE-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2021)
Case details for

Thornberry v. Baughman

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL LEE THORNBERRY, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BAUGHMAN, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 24, 2021

Citations

2:19-cv-00639-MCE-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2021)