McNeal v. Evert, 2:05-cv-00441-TLN-EFB. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180712727
Visitors: 22
Filed: Jul. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on four requests by Plaintiff Vernon McNeal ("Plaintiff"): (1) Request for photographs from inside the control tower of Cell 2211 (ECF No. 344); (2) Request that real handcuffs, leg restraints, retention device and holding cell door be at trial (ECF No. 345); (3) Request for in camera review of Defendants' personnel records (ECF No. 346); and (4) Request that photographs be taken from inside the control tower of Cell 22
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on four requests by Plaintiff Vernon McNeal ("Plaintiff"): (1) Request for photographs from inside the control tower of Cell 2211 (ECF No. 344); (2) Request that real handcuffs, leg restraints, retention device and holding cell door be at trial (ECF No. 345); (3) Request for in camera review of Defendants' personnel records (ECF No. 346); and (4) Request that photographs be taken from inside the control tower of Cell 221..
More
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on four requests by Plaintiff Vernon McNeal ("Plaintiff"): (1) Request for photographs from inside the control tower of Cell 2211 (ECF No. 344); (2) Request that real handcuffs, leg restraints, retention device and holding cell door be at trial (ECF No. 345); (3) Request for in camera review of Defendants' personnel records (ECF No. 346); and (4) Request that photographs be taken from inside the control tower of Cell 2211 (ECF No. 347).
This Court previously denied Plaintiff's request for photographs, request for incamera review of the Defendants' personnel records, and request for real handcuffs, leg restraints, and retention devises. (ECF No. 275.) The Court found the requests sought discovery and that good cause did not exist to allow for Plaintiff to seek discovery after the discovery deadline had passed. (ECF No. 275 at 1-2.) Plaintiff's current submissions are identical to his previous submissions. (ECF Nos. 263, 264, & 268.) Plaintiff has not provided any new information demonstrating good cause for an extension of the discovery deadline. Accordingly, Plaintiff's requests (ECF Nos. 344, 345, 346, & 347) are hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
