Bouie v. Willox, 2:16-cv-0624 JAM AC P. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200123925
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 22, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 22, 2020
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . On January 9, 2020, the court received plaintiff's motion to compel, which was captioned as objections to defendant Willox's responses to plaintiff's requests for discovery. ECF No. 38. The court excused the untimeliness of the motion but denied the motion as to plaintiff's second request for production and first set of interrogatories because, contrary to plaintiff's assertion, the responses were not untimely, and defendant's objections had therefo
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . On January 9, 2020, the court received plaintiff's motion to compel, which was captioned as objections to defendant Willox's responses to plaintiff's requests for discovery. ECF No. 38. The court excused the untimeliness of the motion but denied the motion as to plaintiff's second request for production and first set of interrogatories because, contrary to plaintiff's assertion, the responses were not untimely, and defendant's objections had therefor..
More
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
On January 9, 2020, the court received plaintiff's motion to compel, which was captioned as objections to defendant Willox's responses to plaintiff's requests for discovery. ECF No. 38. The court excused the untimeliness of the motion but denied the motion as to plaintiff's second request for production and first set of interrogatories because, contrary to plaintiff's assertion, the responses were not untimely, and defendant's objections had therefore not been waived. ECF No. 39 at 2. The motion was denied on the additional ground that plaintiff failed to specifically identify which requests were in dispute or explain why the responses were deficient, and plaintiff was given an opportunity to file a motion to compel that was in the proper form. Id. Plaintiff has now filed another motion to compel that appears to have been mailed to the court prior to the order denying his previous motion and that fails for the same reasons his previous motion failed. ECF No. 40. The motion will therefore be denied for the same reasons as the previous motion. Plaintiff still has until February 7, 2020, to file a motion to compel that is in the proper form, as set forth in this court's January 14, 2020 order. ECF No. 39.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel, ECF No. 40, is denied.
Source: Leagle
