Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

GARDNER v. COLEMAN, 2:12-cv-1981 GEB CKD PS. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140708762 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jul. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 07, 2014
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the court is defendant's motion to compel response to interrogatories and production of documents. Defendant also moves to compel plaintiff's attendance at his deposition. Under the scheduling order issued November 19, 2013, Local Rule 230(1) governs the briefing schedule for discovery motions. Plaintiff has not filed a timely opposition. 1 The propounded discovery is reasonable and tailored to the issues raised in this action. Plain
More

ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the court is defendant's motion to compel response to interrogatories and production of documents. Defendant also moves to compel plaintiff's attendance at his deposition. Under the scheduling order issued November 19, 2013, Local Rule 230(1) governs the briefing schedule for discovery motions. Plaintiff has not filed a timely opposition.1

The propounded discovery is reasonable and tailored to the issues raised in this action. Plaintiff has failed to provide any responses to the interrogatories or requests for production of documents. Plaintiff also refused to appear at his deposition. Plaintiff's refusal to cooperate in discovery is in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall, without objection, provide verified responses to the interrogatories and provide responsive documents.

2. Plaintiff shall appear for his deposition and answer questions posed at deposition on a date noticed by defendant.

3. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

4. The scheduling order (ECF No. 35) is hereby modified: Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than October 8, 2014.

FootNotes


1. On June 30, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address and requested that all other provisions of Local Rule 230 apply rather than Local Rule 230(1). It appears plaintiff is still incarcerated. Accordingly, Local Rule 230(1) will still govern briefing of motions in this action.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer