ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT MICHAEL B. ROTHENBERG TO RESPOND TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Re: ECF No. 73

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

Now before the Court is the parties' joint discovery letter brief regarding defendant Michael B. Rothenberg's failure to provide responses to plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission's ("SEC") First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories. ECF No. 73. Responses to these discovery requests were due February 19, 2019, but none have been provided to date. Id. at 2. The SEC asks the Court to order Rothenberg to serve responses and to find that any objections to the discovery requests have been waived. Id. at 4. Rothenberg does not dispute that he is required to respond to these requests, but asks that the Court not find a waiver of his right to object. Id. at 5-6. He states that "[t]he April 10 meet and confer was the first time I was informed that I could not object to any of the SEC's discovery requests, regardless of how unjust or inappropriate they may be and are." Id. at 5.

The Court now ORDERS Rothenberg to serve responses by May 16, 2019. In setting this compliance date, the Court notes that Rothenberg stated that he did "not object to the court giving [him] a hard deadline of April 26, 2019 if it must, although even another one or two weeks would likely make a meaningful difference to [him]." Id. at 5-6. The Court also orders that Rothenberg has WAIVED any right to object to these discovery requests. "It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection." Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). The fact that Rothenberg represents himself does not excuse his failure to provide timely responses. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1987) ("Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants."), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

IT IS SO ORDERED.