WASHINGTON v. NANGALAMA, 2:14-cv-0232 CKD P. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150316988
Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 12, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2015
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . On November 6, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion asking that defendants be compelled to respond to certain discovery requests. Because plaintiff admits that his requests were not timely-served upon defendants, his motion will be denied. To the extent plaintiff now seeks an extension of time to serve requests for discovery, that request will be denied as plaintiff fails to explain why he did not seek an extension of time before the time to serve dis
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . On November 6, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion asking that defendants be compelled to respond to certain discovery requests. Because plaintiff admits that his requests were not timely-served upon defendants, his motion will be denied. To the extent plaintiff now seeks an extension of time to serve requests for discovery, that request will be denied as plaintiff fails to explain why he did not seek an extension of time before the time to serve disc..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
On November 6, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion asking that defendants be compelled to respond to certain discovery requests. Because plaintiff admits that his requests were not timely-served upon defendants, his motion will be denied. To the extent plaintiff now seeks an extension of time to serve requests for discovery, that request will be denied as plaintiff fails to explain why he did not seek an extension of time before the time to serve discovery requests expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 (b)(1)(B).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses (ECF No. 27) is denied; and
2. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to conduct discovery is denied.
Source: Leagle
