Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California resolves several discovery-related motions in Lawrence George Hash’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court grants defendants Faggianelli and Schwimmer an extension of time to respond to requests for admission, denies defendant Perera’s extension motion as unnecessary, denies Hash’s motions for reconsideration, and denies Hash’s motion to compel discovery.
Holdings
- The court had authority to grant an extension nunc pro tunc, defendants were entitled to rely on the parties' initial agreement to a June 7, 2023 response deadline, and their responses were deemed timely.
- The extension motion was denied as unnecessary because the record did not establish that the November 15, 2022 request for production containing thirty-three requests had been timely or properly served, and defendant had already responded to the request that was received.
- The motion to compel was denied because defendants' responses to the requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production were sufficient, and plaintiff could not use a motion to compel to require defendants to adopt his version of events or provide a different type of response.
- The motions for reconsideration were denied because plaintiff presented no new or different facts or circumstances warranting a different result.
Questions Presented
- Whether defendants Faggianelli and Schwimmer should receive an extension of time, nunc pro tunc, to respond to plaintiff's requests for admission and whether their admissions should be withdrawn or amended.
- Whether defendant Perera should receive an extension of time to respond to plaintiff's requests for production.
- Whether plaintiff was entitled to file a sur-reply or obtain sanctions.
- Whether plaintiff's motion to compel approximately 962 discovery responses should be granted.
- Whether plaintiff's motions for reconsideration of prior rulings on an extension of time and appointment of counsel should be granted.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (7)
- United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958)(followed)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)(followed)
- Aros v. Fansler, 548 F. App'x 500, 501 (9th Cir. 2013)(followed)
- Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975)(followed)
- Johnson v. Sandy, 2014 WL 4631642, at *12, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129810, at *7-8 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2014)(distinguished)
- Johnson v. Sandy, 2014 WL 7335228, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178338 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2014)(distinguished)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…