Filed: Jan. 30, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2020
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On January 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a document styled, "Plaintiff[`s] Request for Ex Parte Motion." (ECF No. 54.) In his request, plaintiff alleges that defendants have failed or refused to provide plaintiff access to witnesses and requested documents, and claims that he requested interrogatories on September 6, 2019, but counsel for defendants has not yet responded. Plaintiff's motion appears to be in the nature of a motion to compel discovery
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On January 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a document styled, "Plaintiff[`s] Request for Ex Parte Motion." (ECF No. 54.) In his request, plaintiff alleges that defendants have failed or refused to provide plaintiff access to witnesses and requested documents, and claims that he requested interrogatories on September 6, 2019, but counsel for defendants has not yet responded. Plaintiff's motion appears to be in the nature of a motion to compel discovery ..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
On January 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a document styled, "Plaintiff[`s] Request for Ex Parte Motion." (ECF No. 54.) In his request, plaintiff alleges that defendants have failed or refused to provide plaintiff access to witnesses and requested documents, and claims that he requested interrogatories on September 6, 2019, but counsel for defendants has not yet responded.
Plaintiff's motion appears to be in the nature of a motion to compel discovery responses. However, plaintiff failed to append copies of the specific discovery requests or any responses thereto. Moreover, discovery closed on January 10, 2020. (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff's request was signed on January 18, 2020, and presented to prison staff for mailing on January 20, 2020.1 Thus, plaintiff's motion to compel further discovery responses is untimely and is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request (ECF No. 54), construed as a motion to compel, is denied as untimely.
FootNotes
1. Under the "mailbox rule," when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the Court deems the pleading constructively filed on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted);
