(PC) Mendoza v. Pickett ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN G. MENDOZA, No. 2:18-cv-0553-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. PICKETT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed four discovery-related motions (ECF Nos. 17-20). Defendants oppose 19 the motions. ECF No. 21. For the reasons stated below, the motions are denied. 20 In the first motion, titled, “motion for discovery,” plaintiff filed a request for production of 21 documents. ECF No. 17. Discovery requests, however, shall only be filed with the court if they 22 are at issue. See E.D. Cal. Local Rules 250.2-250.4. At this time, there is no court proceeding 23 that requires the court’s review of plaintiff’s discovery requests. To the extent plaintiff intended 24 to serve defendants with his discovery requests by filing them with the court, the approach is 25 improper. More significant, however, is that the deadline for serving requests for written 26 discovery previously expired on October 11, 2019, rendering plaintiff’s requests, dated December 27 5, 2019, untimely. See ECF No. 15 at 4. For these reasons, the motion (ECF No. 17) is denied. 28 ///// 1 In two other motions, plaintiff seeks to depose defendants by written question, specifically 2 citing to Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF Nos. 18, 20. Plaintiff is thus 3 aware that Rule 31 outlines the procedures to be followed when seeking to depose by written 4 question and that leave of court is not required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 31. Plaintiff has not complied 5 with those procedures (e.g., sending notice to defendants and the officer taking the deposition, 6 and providing an exact a list of questions), and the time for doing so has now passed. See ECF 7 No. 15 at 4 (“All requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31 . . . shall be served not later 8 than October 11, 2019.”). For these reasons, these motions (ECF Nos. 18, 20) are also denied. 9 Plaintiff also filed a “motion for an order compelling discovery,” seeking to compel 10 defendants to respond to discovery requests that plaintiff served on November 5, 2019. ECF No. 11 19 at 4. Plaintiff’s motion is denied because the discovery at issue was not timely served in 12 advance of the October 11, 2019 deadline. To the extent plaintiff seeks to modify the discovery 13 and scheduling order by way of this motion, it too is denied. Without elaboration, plaintiff states 14 that the following portion of the scheduling order was “confusing and contradictory” (id.): 15 The parties may conduct discovery until December 20, 2019. Any motions 16 necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 shall be served not later 17 than October 11, 2019. 18 ECF No. 15 at 4. Plaintiff’s motions and untimely discovery requests evince an understanding of 19 the Rules governing written discovery that are referenced in the October 11, 2019 deadline. See 20 ECF No. 19 at 4 (“Plaintiff submitted these interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal 21 Rules of Civil Procedure”); id. at 7 and 10 (citing to Rules 33 and 34 in his requests for 22 production and interrogatories); ECF No. 20 at 1 (moving the “court for an order pursuant to 23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 31 for Deposition upon written question”). Accordingly, 24 plaintiff’s apparent objection to the discovery and scheduling order as “confusing and 25 contradictory” is not well-taken and belied by his own filings. As defendants note, if plaintiff had 26 been confused about the applicable deadlines, he could have demonstrated diligence by timely 27 seeking clarification as to what the October 11, 2019 deadline meant. ECF No. 21 at 3. He failed 28 to take any such action. Thus, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for modifying the 1 || discovery and scheduling order and this motion is also denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); 2 || Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiffs “motion for discovery” (ECF No. 17) is DENIED; 5 2. Plaintiff's “motion[s] for deposition [by written question]” (ECF Nos. 18, 20) are 6 DENIED; and 7 3. Plaintiffs “motion for an order compelling discovery” (ECF No. 19) is DENIED. 8 | DATED: February 6, 2020. 9 tid, PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28