Joseph Townsend v. Parrish, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants defendants’ motion to compel discovery in Joseph Townsend’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court denies plaintiff’s motion for a sixty-day extension, deems defendants’ requests for admissions admitted, orders plaintiff to respond to interrogatories and requests for production, and requires him to meaningfully participate in a deposition. The court withdraws its prior findings and recommendations for dismissal and establishes deadlines for discovery and pretrial motions.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to establish good cause for a sixty-day extension because he did not explain why he could not prepare an opposition before the accident or seek an extension earlier.
2. Defendants' motion to compel was granted. Plaintiff was required to meaningfully participate in a renewed deposition and respond to the interrogatories and requests for production after re-service.
3. Plaintiff could not refuse to answer deposition questions merely because he believed them irrelevant, beyond the scope, or previously asked and answered; he could refuse only on grounds authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2).
4. Defendants' requests for admission were deemed admitted because plaintiff failed to respond timely.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff established good cause for a sixty-day extension of time to oppose defendants' motion to compel.
2. Whether defendants were entitled to an order compelling plaintiff to meaningfully participate in his deposition and respond to interrogatories and requests for production.
3. Whether defendants' requests for admission should be deemed admitted because plaintiff failed to respond timely.
4. What discovery and pretrial deadlines and consequences should govern the action after the motion to compel was granted.

Disposition

other