Filed: Aug. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested an unspecified extension of the deadline for conducting discovery with defendant Arana. 1 ECF No. 36. Arana opposes the request. ECF No. 37. Discovery between plaintiff and Arana is scheduled to close on October 4, 2019, and discovery requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 31, 33, 34, and 36 were to be served no later than August 5, 2019. ECF No. 35 at 5. Though it is not entire
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested an unspecified extension of the deadline for conducting discovery with defendant Arana. 1 ECF No. 36. Arana opposes the request. ECF No. 37. Discovery between plaintiff and Arana is scheduled to close on October 4, 2019, and discovery requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 31, 33, 34, and 36 were to be served no later than August 5, 2019. ECF No. 35 at 5. Though it is not entirel..
More
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested an unspecified extension of the deadline for conducting discovery with defendant Arana.1 ECF No. 36. Arana opposes the request. ECF No. 37.
Discovery between plaintiff and Arana is scheduled to close on October 4, 2019, and discovery requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 31, 33, 34, and 36 were to be served no later than August 5, 2019. ECF No. 35 at 5. Though it is not entirely clear, plaintiff appears to claim that he requires additional time for discovery because Arana has not provided initial disclosures, which has prevented him from submitting request for admission. ECF No. 36 at 4. Plaintiff also appears to claim that he needs the responses to his requests for production, served on July 23, 2019, before he can submit interrogatories. Id. at 5.
As Arana correctly points out, because plaintiff is an inmate proceeding without counsel, the parties are not required to exchange initial disclosures and all discovery must be obtained through requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv). Plaintiff also fails to explain why he could not submit requests for admissions without the documents he believed Arana was required to disclose, nor has he explained why he could not submit interrogatories without first receiving the responses to his production request. Plaintiff also fails to provide a reason why he waited over a month to begin requesting discovery when he believed he needed the requested documents before he could submit additional discovery requests. However, given plaintiff's pro se status and apparent mistaken belief that Arana was required to provide initial disclosures, the court will extend the time to submit discovery requests. If plaintiff seeks any additional time to conduct discovery, he will need to file a motion that states how much additional time he is requesting and that also provides the information identified above.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to submit discovery requests (ECF No. 36) is granted.
2. Plaintiff shall have until August 30, 2019, to submit discovery requests to defendant Arana. Discovery between plaintiff and defendant Arana shall close on November 1, 2019. Any motions necessary to compel discovery between plaintiff and defendant Arana must be filed by August 12, 2019.
