Humes v. Harmon, 2:18-cv-0426 JAM CKD P. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20181213a53
Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a Sacramento County Jail inmate proceeding pro se with a claim arising under the Fourth Amendment. The remaining defendant, defendant Harmon, is a Sacramento County Sheriff's Department detective. On September 26, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion asking that the court compel defendant to respond to "interrogatories." In the court's June 27, 2018 scheduling order, the parties were informed that any request for discovery had be to serv
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a Sacramento County Jail inmate proceeding pro se with a claim arising under the Fourth Amendment. The remaining defendant, defendant Harmon, is a Sacramento County Sheriff's Department detective. On September 26, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion asking that the court compel defendant to respond to "interrogatories." In the court's June 27, 2018 scheduling order, the parties were informed that any request for discovery had be to serve..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a Sacramento County Jail inmate proceeding pro se with a claim arising under the Fourth Amendment. The remaining defendant, defendant Harmon, is a Sacramento County Sheriff's Department detective.
On September 26, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion asking that the court compel defendant to respond to "interrogatories." In the court's June 27, 2018 scheduling order, the parties were informed that any request for discovery had be to served no later 60 days prior to the October 19, 2018 discovery cut off. Plaintiff fails to point to anything indicating defendant failed to respond to any interrogatories served upon defendant in a timely manner.1 Furthermore, plaintiff never sought an extension of the deadline for serving discovery requests.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's September 26, 2018 motion to compel is denied.
FootNotes
1. From a review of the record, it appears, plaintiff served "interrogatories" either on or shortly after August 26, 2018 (ECF No. 31) along with his opposition to defendant Harmon's motion for a stay, and then again with his motion to compel.
Source: Leagle
