Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the parties' motions for extensions of time concerning discovery and related filings in this prisoner civil-rights action. The court grants plaintiff additional time to respond to requests for admission and production, denies his request to depose defendants because he has not shown an ability to pay deposition expenses, and finds defendants' motion to compel timely filed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether good cause supported extending plaintiff's deadline to respond to defendants' requests for admission and production of documents.
- Whether an in forma pauperis prisoner may obtain court-funded depositions without showing an ability to pay the associated stenographic or court-reporter costs.
- Whether defendants should receive an extension of the discovery deadline to file a motion to compel and respond to plaintiff's allegations.
Holdings
- Good cause supported extending plaintiff's deadline to serve responses to defendants' requests for admission and production of documents until October 24, 2025, with the order setting October 25, 2025, as the service deadline.
- Plaintiff's request to depose defendants was denied because he did not address his ability to pay deposition expenses, and the court lacked authority to finance or pay those expenses merely because he proceeded in forma pauperis.
- Defendants' motion for a seven-day extension of the August 29, 2025 discovery deadline was granted, and their motion to compel and motion for extension filed September 5, 2025, was deemed timely.
Key quotations
“this court has no authority to finance or pay for a party’s discovery expenses even though the party has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” (at 2)
“The taking of depositions would entail stenographic or court reporter expenses which this court is not authorized to pay, and plaintiff has made no showing that he is able to pay the expenses for the taking of depositions.” (at 2)
Factual background
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, received defendants' requests for admission and production of documents on June 26, 2025. He sought additional time because he needed to gather documents from prison personnel and the mental-health department and because a purported attorney needed time to become familiar with the case. Defendants sought additional time related to alleged misconduct during plaintiff's deposition and to respond to allegations concerning defense counsel.
Procedural history
The court had previously issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order setting discovery and pretrial-motion deadlines. Plaintiff moved for additional time to respond to defendants' requests for admission and production of documents and also sought permission to depose all defendants. Defendants moved for an extension of the discovery deadline to file a motion to compel and respond to allegations concerning defense counsel. The court granted both extension motions, denied plaintiff's deposition request, and deemed defendants' motion to compel timely filed.