Opinion
1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG (PC)
11-29-2022
GERRY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. CLEMENT OGBUEHI, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (ECF NOS. 63 & 64)
Gerry Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is proceeding against defendants Ogbuehi and Ulit based on allegations that Plaintiff's Hepatitis C “went untreated despite his reports of excruciating pain,” and that “he received no treatment for his pain associated with Hepatitis C and cirrhosis.” (ECF No. 24, p. 2).
I. THE PARTIES' FILINGS
On November 16, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to compel and to modify the scheduling order. (ECF No. 63). Defendants “move to compel Plaintiff Gerry Williams's responses to the Prison Medical Officials' interrogatories.” (Id. at 2). In addition, Defendants “request that the Court extend the deadline to complete discovery from February 17, 2023, to 45 days after the Court rules on their motion to compel.”
According to Defendants, they served Plaintiff with interrogatories and requests for admission on September 27, 2022, and his responses were due on November 14, 2022. (Id. At 2). “On November 8, 2022, the parties conferred by telephone.” (Id.). Plaintiff told defense counsel that he sent his responses on November 7, 2022. (Id.). “However, defense counsel did not receive these responses.” Accordingly, Defendants ask the Court to compel Plaintiff to respond. (Id. at 2-3).
On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants' motion to compel and to modify scheduling order, as well as a request for sanctions. (ECF No. 64). Plaintiff states that the call occurred as alleged by Defendants. (Id. at 1). However, Plaintiff did mail the discovery responses on November 7, 2022, as he told defense counsel on the call. (Id.). Attached to Plaintiff's motion are his discovery responses, as well as proofs of service indicating that they were served on or before November 7, 2022. (Id. at 6-34). Accordingly, Plaintiff argues that Defendants' motion to compel and request to modify the scheduling order should be denied. (Id. at 2).
Plaintiff also asks for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 and 37(a)(5) because Defendants filed the motion to compel for an improper purpose. (Id. at 2-3). Plaintiff argues that because he told Defendants on November 8, 2022, that he had already sent the responses, their motion to compel was filed for an improper purpose and “sanction is required....” (Id.). Plaintiff further argues that Defendants requested an extension of time in order to delay the proceedings. (Id. at 3).
II. ANALYSIS
As to Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery requests, Plaintiff has submitted evidence that he timely responded to Defendants' discovery requests. Moreover, Plaintiff's responses are attached to his opposition. Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants' motion to compel.
As to Defendants' request to modify the scheduling order, the deadline to complete nonexpert discovery, February 17, 2023 (ECF No. 47, p. 5), is already over forty-five days from the date of this order on Defendants' motion to compel. Accordingly, the request to modify the scheduling order will be denied.
As to Plaintiff's request for sanctions, it will be denied as well. There is no evidence that, when Defendants filed the motion to compel and to modify the scheduling order on November 16, 2022, they had already received the discovery responses that Plaintiff alleges were mailed on November 7, 2022. Moreover, the motion to compel deadline was November 18, 2022. (ECF No. 47, p. 5). Thus, the Court finds that Defendants' motion to compel was substantially justified and that there is no evidence that Defendants filed the motion for an improper purpose. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff's request for sanctions.
III. ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' motion to compel and to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 63) is DENIED; and
2. Plaintiff's request for sanctions (ECF No. 64) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.